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]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to