Wow! This looks like a hot thread. Well... Looks like I'll, anyway, contribute to it.
We do know that, without GNU+Linux distributions like Debian, Trisquel and many others wouldn't exist. And without the FSF, Debian wouldn't exist.
Why did the FSF stop helping Debian? Simple, because Debian deviates from the goals of the FSF, and as such, Debian has to be fixed, not the FSF.
For me, freedom comes with the control that the user has, not by the variation of the options available. I can't remember where, but I've read somewhere in the FSF's official site that a software developer is not required to release a compiled/built version of such software, just the source code.
While I don't ignore Trisquel's dependency on non-free projects. I'm also worried with the GNU+Linux-libre's dependencies on other non-free projects. That means it's difficult to set things aside and just say: “Well, just abandon the non-free dependencies and start developing GNU+Linux Trisquel and GNU+Linux-libre by their own”. We'll also face other issues, like the absence of resources for the developers (by resources, I mean informations, materials, money, humans, space, technology, etc).
Any organization has an administration, and as such, I believe it's useful to analyze both the Trisquel project and the maintainers of the GNU+Linux-libre project using the three-dimensional metatheoretical of strategic effectiveness in macro environment model [1] (note: the reference is in Brazilian Portuguese only, and under a non-free license, sorry).
Even after analyzing the MM-3D-EEMA, it's difficult for me, as a beginner, to say what both projects should do, but I do know that both area heavily dependent on other projects.
Best regards, ADFENO. Have a nice day. Addendum: The author of the article is my teacher. [1] http://www.convibra.com.br/upload/paper/2013/32/2013_32_7064.pdf
