On Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:48:22 Romain d'Alverny wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> wrote: > > But I don't think it would be a good idea to include non-free contents > > in the distribution ISOs at all. That this assumed majority does not > > care about the issue does not mean we should not care either. We > > should rather stress the point. > > > > We already made such a difference by using different repositories, we > > not continue this in our "product line"? We use a different repo for > > non-free, we also should use a different ISO for non-free. > > Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant > survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity > storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as > that those two media are available from the network without > discrimination. > > So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as > the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the > user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea > about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a > different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition > too).
The question is, why do we want to have a free distribution? What are suitable guidelines? The users who want a Free distribution, would probably choose one that adheres to the FSF free distribution guidelines: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html I think we already don't meet them, with or without a Free DVD, even if we were to remove non-free firmware in the kernel, because we have non-free repos. > > And that would make the case for a consistent installing experience > that, no matter you're doing an exclusively ISO-based install or a > network-based install, you get through the same steps (with a > consistent opt-in or opt-out, clearly explained). It would only happen > that non-free media is available locally if asked for. > > The alternative, if we're not to mix things on the static media, is to > have distinct ISOs: free and nonfree/tainted ones. Times the format: > DVD/CD/arch/USB through which we would have to decide to ease: > building, qa and distribution (we will have to choose a default one to > provide to visitors on the download page for instance). Is there a real benefit? Or, is usability more important? Or, do we want to discuss with FSF the guidelines and whether it is possible for a distribution project to both meet their guidelines (e.g., if user chooses X media, they will never be prompted for non-free software, repositories etc.) and be useful for real-world-users who can't always choose hardware based on open-ness alone? Regards, Buchan
