Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
Late and off-topic, but: On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:02:51AM +0100, Wookey wrote: > I've just installed unrar-free, See also unar as a replacement for unrar-nonfree. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ 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
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
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
> 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
On Sunday 16. October 2016 12.14.11 Philip Hands wrote: > > 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. I did find it rather odd that Trisquel had switched to using Ubuntu as their base rather than Debian: it makes wider architecture support a real problem because Ubuntu has narrowed its own support, presumably dropping non- lucrative/non-enterprise architectures, meaning that one presumably has to reactivate other architectures in Ubuntu to propagate and access the necessary content. I imagine that they also need to do a lot more filtering and rebuilding on what Ubuntu provides than they would had they stuck with Debian, but I didn't follow the decisions around them switching from one to the other. I don't want to get into arguments about popularity, compromises, and so on, but I have an observation to make. If there were a more conservative base for Debian, meaning that certain controversial or unwanted content would be excluded in those base packages, then the derivatives wanting to preserve that conservatism would have an easier task branching out in their own direction, and it would probably even help the greater Debian distribution in terms of managing and maintaining the archive. I think that's what people are looking for from Debian. I've looked into various libre distributions (as anyone reading this list might have noticed), and it is an annoyance that while considering how one might bootstrap one of the non-Debian-derived libre distributions on other architectures, Debian has supported such architectures all along. It really should be a matter of selectively obtaining packages already built by Debian and no more. Instead, it seems like auditing is still required, and this appears to be the time-consuming part. That said, I'm still familiarising myself with things like gNewSense, so I could be wrong, I suppose. Paul ___ 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
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
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
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
On 10/16/16, Wookey wrote: > On 2016-10-15 16:47 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > >> 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). > > There is a difference: Ubuntu will install non-free software (firmware > needed to make hardware work, and binary drivers) by default. Debian > will not do so unless the user adds the non-free repository (SFAIK). appreciated you pointing out the distinction / differenec, wookey. i only became aware of the FSF's position from my conversations with josh gay, some eight or so months ago. i've mentioned them on here before: you may have missed them (i'm aware you're a lurker) so am happy to repeat them in this context. the FSF figures that technically-competent people can look after themselves. "technically-competent" is defined as loosely fitting with "someone who has the capacity to take the initiative to seek out help online or from friends, where such help requires *explicit* following (and trust of) *specific* instructions, step-by-step without deviation or elaboration, usually at the command-line". 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. these are the people whom the FSF's position protects (from themselves) - they are the people who are extremely likely to go *click* synaptics package manager what's that it's not enabled *click* i wonder what nonfree is don't understand don't care oh well let's enable it anyway *click* oh look there's these extra packages i wonder what they do *click* and now they've opened up a means to compromise their computer and their privacy without *ever* encountering a warning that that was even possible. *that's* what the FSF objects to about debian. it's not that the packages *are* separate, it's that it's *too easy* to install them without any warning of any kind, whatsoever. we as technical people just go in and edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add "nonfree" to the end of the appropriate deb line. *non-technical* people run synaptics and its ilke, where there's a GUI-based no-warnings-whatsoever option *right there* in the menus / dialogs, to enable non-free repositories. anyway. thank you for making me aware that FSF documentation is qualified as non-free, that really made my day. 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
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
On 2016-10-15 16:47 -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > 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). There is a difference: Ubuntu will install non-free software (firmware needed to make hardware work, and binary drivers) by default. Debian will not do so unless the user adds the non-free repository (SFAIK). > 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. They (we) could. Ironically a large fraction of the packages in non-free are FSF documentation. Most of the rest is firmware blobs (usually running on a different CPU from your main one). Debian has taken the view for many years now that having this stuff available relatively painlessly is the right balance between usability and freedom. There have been suggestions made about putting firmware in a different categary, as that's the main reason people enable non-free, and once enabled you get all of it available, not just the one or two bits you needed, and it would be good if it was less all-or-nothing. Not sure where those changes got to. I have 11 non-free packages. 5 of them are FSF documentation (gcc x2, make, cpio, emacs). 4 others are firmware for this thinkpad (bluetooth and wifi). In fact I even made and uploaded a non-free package: cpio-doc as the cpio docs were not available on Debian without someone doing that (have you tried using cpio without the docs? - it's hard going). The others are tools installed for interacting with other people, where free alternatives do not exist: unrar, nautilus-dropbox. None of that is particularly unethical, except maybe the last two packages, but whilst I am a big supporter of free software (that's why I'm on this list), I think it's OK that Debian manages this stuff properly for when one needs it: it's much better than having to go find random binaries on line to install, for example. I've just installed unrar-free, and removed nautilus-dropbox, as these days one can use some non-free software online to do the same job, when tiresome people send you things via that service. That's more 'FSF pure', but I don't think it really makes much ethical difference: Dropbox is proprietary however you access it. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital 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
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 re
Re: [Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
"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 suspect that Luke is conflating it with the Social Contract, and calling it "Debian Charter" which is ... not a thing. 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?). Then I could chuck the old card into landfill for an "ethical" outcome. 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
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. Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note (_users_ not developers) ? Developers are users too. But where I would point them doesn't matter. These are the FSF's requirements we're talking about. Although I don't speak for the FSF, I believe they'd point any computer user to the FSF's "Respects Your Freedom" hardware (such as what the FSF itself uses) and I believe they'd point out that sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice (as rms points out in all of his talks going back many years). One might not be able to use just any hardware with a Debian GNU/Linux system that satisfies the FSF's recommended distro list. 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. 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. ___ 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
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 convenientl
[Arm-netbook] Debian GNU/Linux, nonfree software, and FSF's free distros list
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
