Of course, you can install a fully free Debian system, but 1 single dialog in setup wizard is a bit too little.
I would rather have the tickbox to install non-free repos somewhere deep in preferences menu and I would certainly not host them on the debian.org domain. Ideally, you would only add non-free repo by manually editing sources.list. Andrew M.A. Cater: > 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]
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk