Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-17 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla'' 
On 2016-10-17 at 19:46:21 +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
> I see that there has been a BOF_ about collaboration between Debian and
> the FSF at the latest Debconf, but I haven't seen the video, so I don't
> know what was said (yet, I may have just found something to watch in the
> near future)

apparently I a) forgot the link, which is
https://debconf16.debconf.org/talks/91/ b) forgot that I did try to
watch that video, but it's missing the first 20 minutes or so of audio
(it's in the known issues at
http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2016/debconf16/README.txt )

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-17 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla'' 
On 2016-10-17 at 10:02:26 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I wish Debian and the FSF would work together to resolve this issue.

They are, more or less: there has been quite some activity a few years
ago which lead to some changes, but work seems to have stalled 
(the `mailing list`_ isn't seeing much traffic lately)

.. _`mailing list`: 
https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss

I suspect that what changes could be agreed on have been done, while
most other cases are points where they had to agree to disagree, such as
the freedom status of the FSF docs and the existence of non-free.

I see that there has been a BOF_ about collaboration between Debian and
the FSF at the latest Debconf, but I haven't seen the video, so I don't
know what was said (yet, I may have just found something to watch in the
near future)

> It shouldn't be that hard to modify Debian so that `non-free` is only ever
> used based on an explicit user request (and to let the user specify
> that this explicit request only applies this one time).

It is, already. users already have to explicitely accept (in some cases that
involve hardware support) or request (in all other cases) that non-free
is enabled.

There is disagreement on how hard it should be to do so, with the FSF
considering what Debian choose to do "too easy".

> Along the same lines, the `non-free` section should be split in two:
> `proprietary`, `non-dfsg`, where the `non-dfsg` part would only contain
> packages which the DFSG rejects as non-free but which many people in the
> Free Software world consider Free nevertheless (basically FSF's docs).

If something is not-DFSG is by definition proprietary as far as Debian
is concerned.

There have been talks about dividing non-free, however, splitting out
the firmwares (that lots of people consider a necessary evil for another
few years), documentation (for which some people including the FSF tend
to have lower requirements) and everything else (the really evil stuff)

There was agreement on this split, but I suspect that it has been stuck
in a lack of volunteer time.
-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-17 Thread Stefan Monnier 
> Which suggests the nonfree software integration the FSF spoke of is in
> there. After all, like you just said, if it's an opt-in away to get the
> nonfree software the nonfree repos are listed but not enabled until one
> answers "yes" to activate the nonfree repos Debian hosts. If this isn't the
> case, and the FSF's requests are being met it's a simple matter for someone
> from Debian to submit the latest Debian GNU/Linux for a proper review and
> possible inclusion on the list.

I wish Debian and the FSF would work together to resolve this issue.
It shouldn't be that hard to modify Debian so that `non-free` is only ever
used based on an explicit user request (and to let the user specify
that this explicit request only applies this one time).

Along the same lines, the `non-free` section should be split in two:
`proprietary`, `non-dfsg`, where the `non-dfsg` part would only contain
packages which the DFSG rejects as non-free but which many people in the
Free Software world consider Free nevertheless (basically FSF's docs).


Stefan


___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-16 Thread Philip Hands 
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  writes:

...
>  the FSF's position there covers *everyone else*, who, by definition,
> cannot trust or be trusted to follow explicit written or verbal
> instructions, cannot cope with a command-line prompt, cannot
> comprehend the consequences of their actions, does not understand or
> read "terms and conditions" and so on.

Right, so hardly Debian's target audience then.

It's all very well having something to cater to the non-technical folk,
and I applaud the effort, but you'll note that almost all of the "Libre"
OSs are actually Debian based, and if you made Debian unusable on most
of the hardware that Debian developers actually use (or are paid by
their employers to use) then all you'd do is make sure that they use
something else, so you wouldn't have the same mindshare in Debian, and
would end up with Debian being as poorly maintained as most of the
"libre" things you apparently wish we'd emulate.

The fact that some of the "libre" OSs base themselves on Ubuntu strikes
me as particularly deranged, given that Ubuntu is actually a step
further away from what they want, but there you go.

So, sure, use a Libre OS of you like the compromises they make, but be
aware that the main reason that you have the chance to do so is that
Debian has made different compromises in order to be popular enough to
be the default upstream for Linux, and thus has made it possible for
someone to create the Libre OS that you are running.

Giving us grief about ethics will not make things better for you.

When I got into Free Software, the way you ran things was to spend three
days recompiling GCC on your proprietary UNIX(TM) OS, followed by perl
etc. -- How useful would it have been to be purist about things then?

The place where one can draw the line has been slowly pushed towards the
hardware, but pretending that the masses are currently able or
interested in running on truly free hardware does not make it true. It
might even sabotage the effort to make it possible.  After all, most
people are firmly clutching their android devices, totally unaware that
there's Free software inside, without even a temptation to look under
the surface.

It seems to me that we're all progressing towards the same destination,
even if via slightly differing routes.  Reenacting "The Life of Brian's"
Splitters scene is just a way of not getting on with something useful
instead -- please give it a rest.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-16 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla'' 
On 2016-10-15 at 18:06:52 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components.
> > 
> > You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends.
> But the recommends and suggests fields are still listing nonfree software,
> which was the FSF's issue. Not accepting the suggestions or recommendations
> doesn't address the issue the FSF raised in Sullivan's DebConf talk.

Suggests, yes, but Recommends to software in non-free shouldn't be there
as they are forbidden by the policy

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main

If you find one, please file a bug so that it can be removed (either
because the Recommends wasn't really supposed to be there, or by moving
the package to contrib, if it really needs non-free software to work)

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-16 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 
On 10/16/16, Philip Hands  wrote:
> "J.B. Nicholson"  writes:
>
>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_
>>> been told.  see joey hess's very public description of the Debian
>>> Charter as a "toxic document".
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> Where would I find something written by Hess clearly explaining why the
>> Debian Constitution is "toxic"?
>
> Yes, it was the Debian Constitution he was referring to.  I'm not really
> sure why this is relevant to the discussion of free software, but I

 i'm beginning to appreciate that everything we're doing boils down to
the extremely rare combination of applying ethics to software.  where
we decide to "draw the line" on those ethics is where various groups
involved in free software (and "open source") is where we differ.

> suspect that Luke is conflating it with the Social Contract, and calling
> it "Debian Charter" which is ... not a thing.

 yes.  thanks for clarifying.  so much to do, covering so many things,
i can't possibly recall all the details at the time that they're
needed, so thank you.

> I think Joey was saying that the constitutions existence has resulted in
> some people having endless discussions about the internal structures of
> Debian, rather than getting on with something useful instead.
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with what Luke seems to be suggesting.
>
> As for the non-free thing and the FSF -- changing things would require
> Debian to consider that to be a good idea, which was certainly not the
> case in 2004:
>
>   https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
>
> I doubt that opinion has changed.
>
> Claiming that is related to being unethical, rather than a result of
> people having differing proprieties, strikes me as rather childish.
>
> On this laptop, I note that I have 4 packages installed from "non-free".
> One is firmware-iwlwifi, and the other 3 are GFDL licensed docs with
> invariant sections.  I suppose I could buy another wifi card (perhaps
> one with the same chipset, with the same firmware, in a ROM?).

 or one where the source code of the firmware is entirely libre.

> Then I could chuck the old card into landfill for an "ethical" outcome.

 indeed. ha.  i like the irony of throwing the old one away.

you could view that action (replacing the card) as being one of
convenience.  thinkpenguin have a stack of available cards (just for
goodness sake get the right one there's a "standard" that isn't
actually a standard..)

 apologies for explaining this if you're already aware of it phil (i'm
explaining for other people's benefit) but if you got one of those
cards, then when you next come to upgrade, you like many people who
buy thinkpenguin's products that "just work", any issues with the
nonfree firmware being incompatible with the kernel as it was being
upgraded (or other similar issues) would *not happen*.

 this "software libre is actually about taking away the stress and
inconvenience" is something that i really did not appreciate until
chris explained thinkpenguin's business model to me.

 chris worked for linspire as a QA engineer.  he got to see first-hand
that linspire's chances of ever being a pre-installed OS shipped out
by default along-side (or instead of) Windows was utterly negligeable.
that there was no chance whatsoever of winmodems working on
linux-based distros, and so on.

 thus he formed the idea to *pre-vet* hardware and *only* sell a
comprehensive range of *pre-tested* products that have full libre
firmware (if any is required at all).  as a result, he continues to
support 15-year-old distros to this day, and supplies *one percent* of
the world's WIFI dongles, which is an amazing achievement for a
company that only employs three people.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-16 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 
On 10/15/16, J.B. Nicholson  wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> It's entirely possible something has changed and I am not aware of relevant
> updates on this (I don't doubt you're in touch with them far more than I
> am). Please do reply to the list with updates to this situation.

 i'm not - they're extremely limited on resources and time, so i keep
communication to a minimum.

> 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".

 ... which is why i proposed an HTTP-redirect-and-rewrite style split
that would appear seamless and transparent (appearing to be a "single
site") for many years.  the wiki however would be a problem that would
need careful and comprehensive review... but if steps are never taken,
even small ones, zero progress will ever be made.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-15 Thread FaTony 
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

[Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list

2016-10-15 Thread J.B. Nicholson 

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

they're doing the best that they believe they can do, but they _have_
been told.  see joey hess's very public description of the Debian
Charter as a "toxic document".


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".


Where would I find something 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?


It's entirely possible something has changed and I am not aware of relevant 
updates on this (I don't doubt you're in touch with them far more than I 
am). Please do reply to the list with updates to this situation.


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)


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.


___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk