On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 04:47:05PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where > Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess > clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic". > > > i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes > >required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in > >a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, > >issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their > >actions are leading them into unethical territory. > > > > ... how simple would that be to add? >
Pick up the Debian netinst iso / the first Debian CD / the first Debian DVD. You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components. You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends. On (both) the Thinkpads in front of me, that would result in non-working wifi but everything else would work. I could plug in one of a few wifi dongles and have a fully free Debian. On the Intel desktop machine away behind me I couldn't get hardware acceleration on the Nvidia card - I could care less. On a Cubietruck / Pine64 / Chip / Raspberry Pi / Pi3 - I couldn't get functionality without non-free which I could get with Allwinner / Broadcom firmware. Debian doesn't supply "non-free" components: in each case you're using firmware distributed with the hardware. Without non-free firmware / forked kernels, all of the ARM hardware we have is pretty much unusable. I'm hopeful that you can prove differently Luke. > But according to published documents I point to below, a popup might be > quite simple to add but insufficient to allow Debian GNU/Linux to appear on > the list of FSF Free System Distributions. I'll explain why I believe this > to be true. > > In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following > objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According > to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," but the > repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can > readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package > database and its wiki". > > John Sullivan went into more detail on the FSF's objection at Debconf2015: > > >So, in Debian's case, the lack of endorsement from us is primarily > >because of the relationship between official Debian and unofficial > >Debian -- the 'non-free' and 'contrib' repositories. And that > >relationship to us seems too close for our comfort. There are spots in > >the Debian infrastructure where those sections even though technically > >separate are integrated very closely with main. So, for example, in > >package searching, in 'recommends' and 'suggests' fields within packages > >that are displayed to users. So even though, in Debian, we have an idea > >that these are separate that's not always as clear to users on the > >outside and they can end up being sometimes inadvertently or sometimes > >just led to install nonfree components on top of the official > >distribution. > > Source: > http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm > (12m18s) > Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note (_users_ not developers) ? It's very clear on the website and in documentation back to 1994 www.debian.org/CD/netinst - no mention of non-free https://www.debian.org/CD/faq#official - unofficial CDs may contain additional hardware drivers, or additional software packages not part of the archive. > I believe the FSF is right to point out Debian's cognitive dissonance. > Debian gets to: > > - host repos containing nonfree software, > - include UI with pointers to said repos in the installed repo list, > - list packages from the nonfree repos as alternatives to free software > packages, > - and also claim that these repos are somehow "not part of the Debian system"? > > I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating > nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what > other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux). > > If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and > contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from > these repos from the free packages. Any packages one installs from Debian's > repos post-installation would have the same restrictions too (thus > addressing what Sullivan mentioned immediately after the above quote). > > It was good of Debian to move the nonfree blobs to the nonfree and/or > contrib repos in Debian 6.0 ("squeeze") in February 2011 but the OS > installer makes the same kinds of recommendations the FSF objects to. I > understand the consequences for users looking to most conveniently install > Debian GNU/Linux plus whatever nonfree software to let the OS run on their > hardware. But I don't see a popup fixing this. I see this as another > convenience vs. software freedom tradeoff (wherein security is certainly on > the side of software freedom too). > > Repo redirects to sets of packages that only mention free software packages > with no references to nonfree software could work but that still involves > providing work for thousands of packages, as you say. > Genuinely: run through a Debian install from the netinst / CDs. Please point out to me where non-free software will be installed without an explicit action to include nonfree software on the part of the person installing. The screen mentioning non-free mentions that hardware drivers that may be required may be non-free but you have to opt in to install them. All the best Andy C [still not speaking for the Debian project] > _______________________________________________ > arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to [email protected] _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
