On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:27:42 +0200 Denis wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 22:51:32 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > and so finally, that i am reluctant to do any of that work, until i > > can see a complete clear path to the goal; because i have no interest > > in TPPMs otherwise > People that care about software using third party package managers or > about using software from these package managers can do the work > instead. > > So here enforcing the FSDG > about nonfree firmware makes more sense as the problem isn't going to > fix itself. > > But we're not in this situation with the third party package managers, > so we also have other options as well.
there is an important difference - there is only one FSDG distro with any desire to distribute non-free firmware; and they keep it in a separate repo, which is considered to be not part of the libre distro - that separation was done before the FSF endorsed the distro - there is no imperative to liberate firmwares; because distros have yet always complied voluntarily on that criteria the TPPMs situation is very different - distros which are not interested in them, already do not distribute them; and so they have no imperative to liberate any - OTOH, distros which are interested in TPPMs, are currently distributing them, and were doing so when those distros were endorsed - although it should be imperative for those distros to liberate or to exclude them, unfortunately, those distros have no incentive to do either, because the FSDG is not enforced after the initial endorsement - the result is that no one is motivated to liberate them, or to use liberation recipes devised by others if we want to invoke the "commitment to correct mistakes" criteria, the first step would be to convince distros that most TPPMs are unfit - so how do we do that, when when distros are free to refute any alleged "mistakes" - distros are even free to re-commit past mistakes and re-open the original freedom bug report which had once prompted an acknowledged correction, essentially admitting that the "mistake" is now intentional - that is the FSDG we have now - distros are required to follow the guidelines only until endorsed; and there is no authority to decide what constitutes "a mistake" later on, or to ensure that mistakes will ever become corrected this is essential - users of an FSDG distro should be reasonably certain that it actually follows the FSDG, and that the criteria are precise enough to be applicable - if the FSDG can not assure that with any confidence, it is not doing very much of value for anyone - the value of the FSDG is not for the FSF as a showcase, nor for distro maintainers as a trophy - its primary value is for users - just as users need FSDG distros to avoid the hassle and uncertainty of curating their own libre software collection perpetually, users need the FSDG to assure them which distros will actually do that job for them perpetually in this case, the most fruitful way to invoke the "commitment to correct mistakes" criteria, would be to demand that all distros remove all unfit TPPMs immediately, until each is made FSDG-fit - that will need to happen anyways, if they are fixed; but only then would distros have any incentive to do anything about them - users deserve to know whether or not their distro is following the FSDG - on that concern alone, i would not wait another moment to run this experiment - that is essential and it will need to happen eventually; but again, the critical issue to address is that nothing like that could be done, neither now nor later, when there is no one in authority to confirm that these TPPMs have ever been a "mistake", and that the grace period has expired or soon will to wait until each or all TPPMs have been liberated, before expecting distros to do anything at all about them, is only to postpone the inevitable moment of truth - the situation will be no different when the time comes to convince distros to adopt the proposed liberated TPPMs - we would still need to convince distros that most TPPMs are unfit; and that would still need to be done with some authority, in order to be compelling - i dont see any value in postponing that event until after help is no longer needed, when the same could be done now while help is needed i would rather put that horse squarely before the cart now, rather than later - it is unreasonably optimistic to be building any new carts for that horse to pull, when it is so uncertain whether or not the horse can stand on its own legs, let alone deliver carts successfully to any destination
