Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
sqlite (including the documentation) is public domain: https://sqlite.org/copyright.html cowsay is under the same license as Perl (that is, the disjunction of Artistic and GPL): https://web.archive.org/web/20120527202447/http://www.nog.net/~tony/warez/cowsay.shtml
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
probably GNU Free Documentation License :-P
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Why are cowsay and sqlite*-doc blacklisted?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
There's always vrms. :-P
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
For debian, there´s should be a package like your-freedom from Parabola https://www.parabola.nu/packages/libre/any/your-freedom/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Obrigado! (Thank you!) :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
boa sorte!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
As long as these people who happen to install Debian don't do such installation/recommendation/selling/sharing/whatever for other people to make use of, we can think of it as "acceptable for the time being". I tend to say that I, **personally**, **could** make use of a non-free software (be it a game, a website's JavaScript, a game running on an emulator, a firmware, a system distribution, whatever); but sharing, selling, installing, or teaching people non-free software means that I'm putting people on a complicated spot. I assume that everyone reading this has also read the transcripts available at GNU.org which talk about the moral dilemmas related to this choice of "using it personally". In practice, I avoid using non-free software at all, I no longer use emulators to play the old non-free games anymore (instead, in my GoblonRefuge account, I'm doing a video series about free/libre games), and as a free software activist, I know that I must replace the non-free software that I'm using overtime, or make pressure against the copyright holders/owners/proprietors to change their mindset and acts. The only things that I have to use that are non-free are kept either due to unintentional limitations on the hardware or due to absence of a replacement software (or another way around it). One of the biggest challenges for me is keeping up with college demands when this involves using the non-free JavaScript of their online student information system. I'm currently having to leave home two hours earlier in order to be allowed to use the college's computer lab and access their student information system (because I can't do this on my own computer). I'm trying to reunite the free/libre software activists from Brazil that are lost across various mailing lists that are inactive or have nothing to do with free/libre software, and I hope to make pressure on Unimestre (the copyright holder of the non-free JavaScript of the student information system of the same name).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Based on what seems to be the case, here's how I see it: Debian strives to be rather free, but due to a few reasons is not FSF-approved Debian seems perfectly cool with that, and in fact there are multiple projects where the two collaborate well, The Free Software community (over here in the English Trisquel forums anyway) seems OTOH to be cool with those who install Debian but avoid the non-free things And then we have people unaffiliated with Debian and the FSF debating whether Debian should be counted as fully free :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Some packages in Debian link to specific parts of the documentation that recommended nonfree software. FSF does not like this one bit. It is not the problem with the ISO. The ISO is just a means of distributing an operating system for testing and installing. And then you install Debian 8, which the FSF cannot endorse. Basically, your "libre ISO" promotes a non-free distribution in the eyes of the FSF. It is as simple as that. Point is, anything that is Debian gets rejected. Only something like gNewSense which is a significant amount of work purging offending packages and anything they depend on, while being independent from Debian project is going to get approval. And if that is what you want, go and help gNewSense for crying out loud!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
>you miss the point entirely Then explain it in more detail. How does debian go wrong when you have installed debian 8 main? If 'synaptic package manager' provides an unacceptable gui to instal non free repositories then leave it out of the iso and let an update application only update main. I still do not understand why an iso like I described cannot get fsf approval? I do not see distributions like gnew and trisquel as viable options for the reasons I already mentioned. I do think it is important that fsf can show a maintained and not difficult to install free software system.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
If you are just making an ISO of Debian packages, just changing the installer, then it is still Debian, just with a slightly different installer. If you plan to change all the packages that are offending, then you would just be duplicating the efforts of gNewSense, which has few resources as it is, and already has the stamp of FSF approval. Go and help them if you want speedier development of Debian made free (according to FSF)! None of what you propose will actually speed up development. It would also need to have self-hosted packages to comply with the strict FSDG. What you propose seems to be just an Iso file. I think you miss the point entirely. Just remember, the FSF is not a Church. Just because it says one thing it doesn't mean it is necessarily right. It doesn't reflect badly on you as a person.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
It seems you now understand what I wrote in my first post. I get the impression you want to brush off what I wrote. >It's hypothetical. No. >what does it offer No asking for non free software when you install. Fsf approval. This I do not know. I assume it is a smaller task to make a librian iso than a trisquel iso because its the debian 8 main repository. If people are not strict about non free software they can ask about that on the debian forum. On the trisquel forum you may and should not. Updates follow debian 8. I do not use trisquel and I am skeptical about it. One thing is that trisquel has small resources. If I have question about non free software I cannot ask on the trisquel forum. A new version of trisquel hangs. People claim trisquel does not get updates fast enough. If correct it tells you that you have reasons to be skeptical. Instead fsf should corporate with debian to make a librian version. >distributing Debian No. >still links to documentation, and recommends nonfree firmware in log files, etc I have written why I think you are wrong. You write the same one more time. Provide documentation.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
It's hypothetical. If your website just distributes Debian main, then what does it offer over Debian standard installation images, since you are still distributing Debian, which still links to documentation, and recommends nonfree firmware in log files, etc etc?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
If you are right about fsf then I disagree more about fsf's policy. I should have asked fsf about my librian example. > installing Debian No, you install librian. > will naturally be directed to the Debian documentation in each of the packages Librian's repository is main from debian 8. Unless I get informed otherwise all information in main is about free software. As I wrote before, librian.com has one link which is a download of a librian iso. No other links.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Because you are still installing Debian. And you will naturally be directed to the Debian documentation in each of the packages, etc etc.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
If wifi ethernet in the installer has been corrected and there is no information about non free software on librian.com then explain how it can be not aligning with fsf?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
No because the problems go further than the installer recommending firmware. The documentation and non-free repositories are also significant issues for the FSF.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
They should make lebrian.com. On the website you should then download an iso made of debian 8. It will not ask for files for wifi and ethernet. Librian will have no links or information about non free software. That would be fsf approvable? Fsf wrote, that it is not important for them that it is difficult to install non free software on a free software system.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Since we are talking about Debian Jessie here, I'll share my experience: all the options for disk encryption are present in the XWindow graphic installer.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
dguth...@posteo.net, Mar 16 Ago 2016 16:36:24 CEST: I thought the text based installer was identical to the graphical installer, albeit a curses interface as opposed to X windows. The text installer has more choices than the graphical installer has. In particular, when partitioning the hard drive(s), the text installer allows for additional options that can be wisely used to get full-disk encryption if you have the proper firmware (i.e. libreboot). Also, the 32-bit text installer has been known to fail since last february because it is an online installer (big mistake) and then the download of packages has been consistently interrupted when one of then consistently failed to download. I followed this issue for more than two months. Maybe this issue has been fixed afterwards... or maybe the 32-bit text installer is about to make it to full six months not working. Ignacio Agulló · agu...@ati.es This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
There is text installer and then there is expert installer (which is also text based). I assure you it's there.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Yes, especially for new users, the idea that "something won't work!" is scary. More often than not they might look for it just to be safe, even when it might be for a more obscure hardware feature. But I do think that enabling hardware support is a good thing. But not free software, so bad in that way.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
I've known the Debian netinstall for 7 and 8 to ask if I have a flashdrive containing the firmware for my Intel wifi. The Debian site offers links to unofficial net install images whose names contain "-firmware", though you have to hunt for them. As long as these prompts for the firmware in the net installer and directories containing the unofficial firmware images are offered, I suppose FSF can't endorse Debian.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
I thought the text based installer was identical to the graphical installer, albeit a curses interface as opposed to X windows. I have used both and I never saw this behaviour in the text installer.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Hmm, maybe things changed with 7 and 8 or it was that I was lucky but I installed Debian on several different laptops and the installer **never** suggested anything to me. You can see a clear reference to the missing non-free firmware during boot, there is that.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
It's in the "expert" text-based installer.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Regarding the second point, I have never seen that in the Debian Jessie installer. Maybe that was from an earlier release?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
"The installer, while only enabling "main", will ask for certain firmware on removable media that a driver might demand, if that firmware is nonfree, and not included in the Debian installer. I can confirm that this behaviour occurs when an Intel wireless card is installed, and I assume this is true for quite a few devices. Debian was my first taste of GNU/Linux. So I downloaded the firmware for my wireless card (in truth, this was just for Bluetooth, and it turned out I could use WiFi without any proprietary software, by some stroke of luck) just to be safe. Then later I read more carefully and found out this was not the case. But it does back up the FSF's point about the installer." Indeed - http://unixhelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.png But also: http://slbase.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/47.jpg
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Regarding documentation, though, I believe that some people file bug reports on it for recommending bad stuff. And it is possible that the Debian community may vote on the inclusion of nonfree and contrib again, as according to Wikipedia they last voted in 2004 (12 years ago). If they were to get rid of nonfree and contrib, and clean up documentation, there is no reason why Debian might not become endorsed by the FSF.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
triple! we haz winner!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
The most glaring faux pas in the eyes of the FSF is the existence of the nonfree and contrib repositories, hosted officially by the project. The documentation specifically says that Debian will support the use of nonfree software. This means that if the FSF endorsed Debian as it currently stands, they indirectly support the use of nonfree software. Now, the standard Debian installer will only enable "main", which is wholly free software. (apart from one or two licenses that the FSF does not say are "free" for one reason or another, but this is minor and is not the main issue here). But the fact that the nonfree and contrib repositories are hosted on official servers means that it is by association a part of the project. The installer, while only enabling "main", will ask for certain firmware on removable media that a driver might demand, if that firmware is nonfree, and not included in the Debian installer. I can confirm that this behaviour occurs when an Intel wireless card is installed, and I assume this is true for quite a few devices. Debian was my first taste of GNU/Linux. So I downloaded the firmware for my wireless card (in truth, this was just for Bluetooth, and it turned out I could use WiFi without any proprietary software, by some stroke of luck) just to be safe. Then later I read more carefully and found out this was not the case. But it does back up the FSF's point about the installer. The documetation also guides people to use nonfree software, to enable the repositories in the sources.list file, and how to get certain nonfree programs, and drivers to work. For example the wiki shows people how to install proprietary video drivers. I think this is a bad thing, and the FSF is right that endorsing Debian right now would not be suitable. There are other minor things like Debian including certain licensed software like the original Artistic license, but this is minor compared to what I just covered. Personally, I do not think that including nonfree firmware for certain drivers is so bad, as it helps enable hardware. I think this is the only thing that can really be justified, providing it is in a separate repository, probably not part of the project at all (i.e. unofficial, not on official servers etc). I use Debian with "main" but I know my way around. Regardless, the FSF understandably cannot endorse Debian.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Non-free software cannot be *easy* to install. AKA: If an unaware and non-technical user can clickity-click a button or two to accidentally install non-free software, it is too easy to install it for the FSDG.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Non-free software cannot be *easy* to install. AKA: If an unaware and non-technical user can clickity-click a button or two to accidentally install non-free software, it is too easy to install it for the FSDG.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Non-free software cannot be *easy* to install. AKA: If an unaware and non-technical user can clickity-click a button or two to accidentally install non-free software, it is too easy to install it for the FSDG.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
I wrote fsf. They did not elaborate about https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html. It appears that fsf thinks debian's website is a blend of free and nonfree software which hinders fsf approval. That debian during installation may ask for nonfree software is of cource not acceptable. >repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers Can a system not get fsf approval if windows 10 is hosted on the same servers if the nonfree software is under another url? The installation problem should get solved. Either debian or fsf should make a debian 8 with another name, no links to nonfree software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
Good links. They have debated debian. Asking for non free free software during installation does not work. It seems fsf does not think it is difficult enough to get non free software into debian 8 after installation. That you have to select non free software should be fitting in order to be fsf compliant.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
svh...@gmail.com wrote: What is it about installing debian 8 that it cannot get fsf approval? I also direct your attention to: http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2016/debconf16/Free_Software_Foundation_Members_talk_about_the_FSF_and_Debian.webm which are DebConf talks from 2015 and 2016. The 2015 talk contains an explanation why Debian is not an FSF-approved distro. By 2016 Debian was still not an FSF-approved distro. Unfortunately audio in the 2016 talk is missing for the first 19m44s. According to http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2016/debconf16/README.txt ""Free Software Foundation Members talk about the FSF and Debian": audio is missing for the first 15 minutes because of mixer issues.". But this might not affect understanding the issue relevant to this thread because in the 2016 talk, there's an on-screen section called "FSF endorsement" which says: --begin quote-- ## FSF endorsement * Nonfree / contrib too close, too much confusion * GFDL invariant sections problem (what would effect be if FSF/GNU changed?) * Make nonfree a nonissue by working together upstream * popcon data for nonfree? http://popcon.debian.org/contrib/by_inst http://popcon.debian.org/contrib/by_vote http://popcon.debian.org/non-free/by_vote http://popcon.debian.org/non-free/by_inst * apt prompts? * A name to reflect Debian's unique position? * Commitment from FSF to celebrate steps (like with squeeze) * How to harden Debian against nonfree once users make a choice ---end quote--- This text appears to be edited in real-time by multiple people simultaneously as the talk goes on. Discussion of this section starts at 24m46s.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
"Is that the problem?" That would be one. More generally: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Debian Your question of the installer is even mentioned there. "However, the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine."
Re: [Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
I couldn't understand your question very well, but I know its subject to some extent. I'm *not* a member of the group responsible for evaluating system distributions, but I can try to answer this question to some extent, based on what I *currently* know (I might be wrong, please contact the people responsible before considering this as truth). As far as I can understand, Debian is not approved as free/libre system distribution because it recommends non-[free/libre] functional data, or repositories that *don't have the goal **and** accomplishment* of including only free/libre functional data. There are other freedom issues that I forgot, but gNewSense is a free/libre system distribution that's based on Debian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Trisquel-users] Getting debian fsf approved
On a trisquel post, there is some writing about trisquel being not updated likely because of lack of resources. I think trisquel is to small and to little and therefore a non effective system. I could ask fsf the following question. I do not because I do not want to bother them, if you can answer. From posts about eoma68, I get the impression that fsf's threshold for approval is, that no user gets non free software without knowing it and the user must himself get non free software on the computer if non free software is, what he wants, correct? What is it about installing debian 8 that it cannot get fsf approval? On a computer, until I got a free software wifi card, during installation it would ask for files to get lan cable ethernet and wifi to work. Likely that would be non free software files. Is that the problem? If a warning would display saying, that non free software may be required in order to get cable ethernet or wifi to work during installation, then debian could get fsf approval? Or there was an alternate debian iso, that would not accept non free cable ethernet or wifi card during installation, then it could get fsf approval? That would be a more effective track to get a fsf approved gnulinux distribution. After getting a free software wifi card, it still asks for a file to get cable ethernet to work. If I select wifi, wifi will work and I get a free software computer. If I then want to get non free software, I have to edit the sources list or install software-properties-gtk and mark non free sources. That does not happen without me noticing it.
