gmane.linux.debian.devel.project

MJ Ray | 4 Nov 11:54

Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

Recent BBC TV news reports over several days last week have described
the use of forced child labour for cotton harvesting in Uzbekistan,
which is then used in t-shirts and so on, including those sold by some
major shops in England like Asda/Wal-Mart.

Many debian fund-raisers sell debian t-shirts, so this might affect
our project too.  Do we have any knowledge about whether current
debian clothes are products of forced child labour?

Should we forbid forced child labour as a requirement of licensing the
debian trademarks?

Should we do this as part of requiring a wider standard, such as the
EIT Base Code, which forbids all forced labour?

Should we revoke any revocable trademark licenses of anyone not
meeting this standard?

Do any other DDs care about this topic?

More info:
Newsnight report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7068096.stm
ETI Base Code http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/base/index.shtml

Thanks for reading,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

(Continue reading)

Jonas Smedegaard | 4 Nov 13:53

Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

MJ Ray skrev:

> Should we forbid forced child labour as a requirement of licensing the
> debian trademarks?

As I understand it, Debian upholds ethics regarding software. We also
attempt defining ethics on our internal socializing. But we avoid doing
so for areas unrelated to software and our developing it.

As a principle, we (as an organisation) do not care if Debian is used to
produce bombs. neither should we care if our logo is printed on T-shirts
produced with child labour, or if employees at T-shirt print companies
drink fairtrade coffee with non-fat organic milk.

I believe it is wrong for us as organisation to attempt defining ethics
in this area.

That said, I also like to emphasize that personally I strongly dislike
child labour. And I encourage fingerpointing at those who benefit from
child labour.

I would most probably join a sub-group calling themselves "Debian
developers against child labour" should such a group be founded. But I
would vote against a GR proposing the project as a whole to submit to
ehtics regarding child labour or lots of other important issues in life.

 - Jonas

--

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt

(Continue reading)

Joerg Jaspert | 4 Nov 16:54

Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

On 11193 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:

> Should we revoke any revocable trademark licenses of anyone not
> meeting this standard?

Should we modify our rules for Debian so that noone is allowed to do
$whatever-doesnt-fit-world-view-of-someone? Be it using our distribution
on systems used for military crap, used to run servers hosting some
illegal activities, etc.

> Do any other DDs care about this topic?

Not in Debian context, this is not what Debian is for.
Debian is about making the best Linux Distribution. Not about saving
$whatever in the world thats not right.

--

-- 
bye Joerg
<exa> Snow-Man: Please don't talk to me. You have demonstrated yourself
	  sufficiently. There is a serious matter being talked.
<Snow-Man> exa: It's hardly serious, it's about you.

MJ Ray | 4 Nov 17:54

Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

Joerg Jaspert <joerg <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On 11193 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Should we revoke any revocable trademark licenses of anyone not
> > meeting this standard?
>
> Should we modify our rules for Debian so that noone is allowed to do
> $whatever-doesnt-fit-world-view-of-someone? [...]

That's a nice straw man.  Shame it seems to block the view of some.

We *already* use the trademark licences to discriminate against some
$whatever-doesnt-fit-world-view-of-someone - review the DCC or debian
labs threads for some examples.  Why not use the trademark to assure
that debian-label clothing meets basic ethical trading standards?

If some want to go fully one way or the other and either close the
debian trademark down completely, or open the trademark to completely
non-discriminatory use, then I respect those views, but that doesn't
seem to have been suggested.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Pierre Habouzit | 4 Nov 19:17

X-Face

Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 03:54:40PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Be it using our distribution on systems used for military crap, used
> to run servers hosting some illegal activities, etc.

  This is a blatant violation of DFSG§5.

  Oops, did I inadvertently stepped on a troll's tail ?

--

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder <at> debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

MJ Ray | 4 Nov 19:46

Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 03:54:40PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Be it using our distribution on systems used for military crap, used
> > to run servers hosting some illegal activities, etc.
>
>   This is a blatant violation of DFSG§5.
>
>   Oops, did I inadvertently stepped on a troll's tail ?

Please leave the name-calling outside.  My question was serious: do
we know who is making the products we endorse as officially debian, do
we know whether any are forced to make them and is the project OK with
the current status?

Also I assume Joerg Jaspert's reply is serious, even if I think it's
mistaken - if someone produced a CD of our distribution that did
globally-illegal activities by default and sold it labelled as
"official debian", I hope the project would act against them.  The
restrictions on what distributions can be labelled as official debian
are fairly tight: see http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#whatlabel

Regards,
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Stephen Gran | 4 Nov 20:21

do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> Also I assume Joerg Jaspert's reply is serious, even if I think it's
> mistaken - if someone produced a CD of our distribution that did
> globally-illegal activities by default and sold it labelled as
> "official debian", I hope the project would act against them.  

Why do you hope that?  What part of the DFSG leads you to believe we
should?  And illegal in what jurisdiction?

> The restrictions on what distributions can be labelled as official
> debian are fairly tight: see http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#whatlabel

Yes: 
"Note that you are allowed to use the Official designation only on CDs
the image of which has a checksum that matches the one from the jigdo
files of official releases."

That has something to do with a random morality or legality in what
sense?
--

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran <at> debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

MJ Ray | 4 Nov 22:08

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

No, not all of my subjects sound like tabloid headlines, but I think
too many do and I see now that this last one can be read that way.
My last writing training was from a tabloid newspaper.  Sorry.

Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > [...] if someone produced a CD of our distribution that did
> > globally-illegal activities by default and sold it labelled as
> > "official debian", I hope the project would act against them.  
>
> Why do you hope that?  What part of the DFSG leads you to believe we
> should?  And illegal in what jurisdiction?

I hope that because I hope our release managers would never issue such
a public release - why, do you think any would? - so it would be
mis-labelled and we'd want to stop that - wouldn't we?

It's not part of the DFSG that leads me to believe we should act
against such a release, but more the social contract parts like "our
priorities are our users" and our advertising debian as "a nice format
for easy installation on your machine." If we're going to make that
claim, then we should try to make sure that what appears as debian is
that "nice format" and not something which makes users into criminals.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
http://www.debian.org/

> > The restrictions on what distributions can be labelled as official
> > debian are fairly tight: see http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#whatlabel
>
> Yes:

(Continue reading)

Steve Langasek | 5 Nov 17:52

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:21:55PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Also I assume Joerg Jaspert's reply is serious, even if I think it's
> > mistaken - if someone produced a CD of our distribution that did
> > globally-illegal activities by default and sold it labelled as
> > "official debian", I hope the project would act against them.  

> Why do you hope that?  What part of the DFSG leads you to believe we
> should?  And illegal in what jurisdiction?

The DFSG does not, and should not, control our licensing of the Debian
trademarks.

It is true that the DFSG and the Social Contract are the only principles for
which there is an a priori consensus in Debian[1].  I find it distasteful
that some people seem to use this very fact as an argument against taking
ethical stances as a project on matters unrelated to software licensing, as
if it's not even worth asking whether there are other points that we can
agree on as a community.  Indeed, I believe this attitude has contributed
significantly to the more dysfunctional aspects of the Debian community.

(In the present instance, I'm unconvinced that it's realistic for Debian to
police the entire clothing manufacturing process without drastically
limiting the number of vendors we license to, because so much of the
clothing industry /is/ an unethical mess; but it would be nice if we could
actually have that conversation, instead of setting up strawmen about
software licensing.)

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS

(Continue reading)

Russ Allbery | 5 Nov 18:38

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail?

Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> writes:

> (In the present instance, I'm unconvinced that it's realistic for Debian
> to police the entire clothing manufacturing process without drastically
> limiting the number of vendors we license to, because so much of the
> clothing industry /is/ an unethical mess; but it would be nice if we
> could actually have that conversation, instead of setting up strawmen
> about software licensing.)

Child labor is also a particularly touchy area on which I think the
consensus is nowhere near as clear or obvious as some would like to
present.  A lot of the anti-child-labor discussions seem to assume that
the alternative to child labor for the children involved is some sort of
first-world idyllic childhood.  In at least some of the countries
involved, the economic reality is that the alternative to child labor may
be starvation, prostitution, or something else even more repugnant, and
varies a lot by individual case.

Also, while I firmly approve of dictating ethical standards to
multinational corporations based on the first world, even when they're
operating in other countries, dictating labor laws to companies and
governments of poor countries, even with strong motivation, has a certain
air of imperialistic paternalism that I find difficult to swallow.  It has
been normal for most of history for people of an age that we currently
define as "children" to work to support their families, and that we no
longer need this in the developed world is a sign of our material wealth
as much as it's a sign of any particular moral principles.  It's one thing
to try to impose universal standards of human rights; it's another to
demand poor countries provide to their citizens a first-world standard of
living.  The line inbetween is highly murky and difficult to draw.

(Continue reading)

Pierre Habouzit | 5 Nov 19:50

X-Face

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:52:32PM +0000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I find it distasteful that some people seem to use this very fact as
> an argument against taking ethical stances as a project on matters
> unrelated to software licensing, as if it's not even worth asking
> whether there are other points that we can agree on as a community.

If people missed it in the first place, I was being sarcastic. Of course
I'm against Child labour, AIDS, Poverty or Hunger. Though I don't really
understand why Debian would have to issue any kind of statement.

If people use Debian to enslave others, it's a crime against the
Humanity and there is La Hague for them. If people use Debian to kill
other people, there are courts for them. People selling bread knives
aren't prosecuted if someone used a bread knife to kill their SigO,
because it's not the primary use of such a tool. And nobody expects
bread knives manufacturers to issue statements against domestic
violence.

Of course, if you sell weapons, whose usual use is indeed to harm
people, then you expect the reseller to check who they are selling their
weapons to, and to have some kind of ethical official position. But
unless there are people to believe Debian is usually used to do Harm,
then this whole conversation is just moot.

Or maybe we should discuss if Debian should issue a statement against
people frustrated by a buggy Debian software, and use their
Debian-powered laptop to club their neighbor ?

If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike
organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to

(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 7 Nov 12:19

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike
> organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to
> this organization's board, and the ethics of the company should be
> questioned. Optionally we could set-up a Debian wiki page to remind to
> Debian related non profits that some companies they may buy goods for
> may be quite eager to look away when it comes to how their goods are
> created.

I believe it's most efficient to apply this bugfix at the highest
level possible.  So, I try Debian (the licensor) before trying
individual licensees one at a time.  I'd try to fix a memory leak in a
library by fixing the library in preference to trying to work around
it in every program.

There was also some information-gathering in my request and it seems
this question is being lost: Do we have any knowledge about whether
current debian clothes are products of forced child labour?

> But yes I believe that Debian is making software and has no point in
> taking such positions. [...]

The project has already taken a position by licensing its trademark to
some traders and not others.  Anyone who believes it has no point in
taking such positions should be working to either revoke or
public-license it.

Do we know anything more than http://www.debian.org/trademark about
our licensees?  Are there other licensees not listed there?

(Continue reading)

Pierre Habouzit | 7 Nov 12:59

X-Face

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:19:07AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > If MjR has issues with the company Debian-UK (or any other alike
> > organization) he buys his t-shirts from, then he should mention it to
> > this organization's board, and the ethics of the company should be
> > questioned. Optionally we could set-up a Debian wiki page to remind to
> > Debian related non profits that some companies they may buy goods for
> > may be quite eager to look away when it comes to how their goods are
> > created.
> 
> I believe it's most efficient to apply this bugfix at the highest
> level possible.  So, I try Debian (the licensor) before trying
> individual licensees one at a time.  I'd try to fix a memory leak in a
> library by fixing the library in preference to trying to work around
> it in every program.

Except that Debian is not responsible of what Debian-related Orgs do
(Unless I'm mistaken, Debian UK and friends aren't affiliated to
`Debian`). Though you may want to port that to SPI, to whom associations
may want to be affiliated to. Debian is _not_ the highest level, it's
not in the same hierarchy.

You're trying to fix memory leaks in a library by making the compiler
issue statements about malloc() being a bad thing. I say the compiler
has little knowledge about the real issue in the library and it'd better
keep its mouth shut.

> There was also some information-gathering in my request and it seems
> this question is being lost: Do we have any knowledge about whether
> current debian clothes are products of forced child labour?

(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 7 Nov 13:28

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
> Except that Debian is not responsible of what Debian-related Orgs do
> (Unless I'm mistaken, Debian UK and friends aren't affiliated to
> `Debian`). Though you may want to port that to SPI, to whom associations
> may want to be affiliated to. Debian is _not_ the highest level, it's
> not in the same hierarchy. [...]

The debian project is responsible for what its trademark licensees do,
in some ways.  SPI generally defers to the project on that, as
explained by its Position and Promises about Intellectual Property
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/1998-11-16.iwj.2/

The debian project is a higher level in this particular tree.  Even if
anyone thinks this is for SPI to do, I believe SPI would need
instruction from this project before it acts.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Stephen Gran | 5 Nov 20:04

Re: do all of MJRs subjects sound like they were ripped from the Daily Mail? [was: Re: Is debian profiting from forced child labour?]

This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:21:55PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > > Also I assume Joerg Jaspert's reply is serious, even if I think it's
> > > mistaken - if someone produced a CD of our distribution that did
> > > globally-illegal activities by default and sold it labelled as
> > > "official debian", I hope the project would act against them.  
> 
> > Why do you hope that?  What part of the DFSG leads you to believe we
> > should?  And illegal in what jurisdiction?
> 
> The DFSG does not, and should not, control our licensing of the Debian
> trademarks.

Of course not.  However, it is the only set of principles that everyone
here has agreed to.

> It is true that the DFSG and the Social Contract are the only principles for
> which there is an a priori consensus in Debian[1].  I find it distasteful
> that some people seem to use this very fact as an argument against taking
> ethical stances as a project on matters unrelated to software licensing, as
> if it's not even worth asking whether there are other points that we can
> agree on as a community.  Indeed, I believe this attitude has contributed
> significantly to the more dysfunctional aspects of the Debian community.

The wide variety of what can be considered ethical makes me feel that
it's probably not worth it for things not directly related to software,
or matters having to do with us getting along as a project and
continuing to at least vaguely function.  Personally, I find any form of
coerced labor, be it child labor, slavery, or wage slavery, distasteful.

(Continue reading)

Return

Return to gmane.linux.debian.devel.project.

Advertisement

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane