1. Onpon4 has already answered:
All software distributed in Trisquel's repositories is libre.
"Libre" according to FSF's definition of "free software", which does not mean
under a GNU license, nor under a GPL-compatible license (and I assume it is
different from "GNU free", which you coined but cannot define).
2. Why are you asking about what DE we desire?
I am not.
I saw some distributions that allow to choose Gnome, XFCE or KDE from the
Login Screen.
Onpon4 already answered:
That's a feature of the display manager (login screen) and has nothing to do
with what the default DE is. Trisquel has this and will continue to have it.
Of course, you first need to install the desktop environments you want. That
takes about four clicks in the "Synaptic package manager". Installing all
desktop environments by default would mean having a very large ISO with many
different programs that fulfill the same tasks. Confusing.
3. Just search (Ctrl+F) the license on https://www.gnu.org/licenses and you
will read sentences such as:
Both public domain works and the lax license provided by CC0 are compatible
with the GNU GPL.
Creative Commons Nocommercial, any version and Creative Commons
Noderivatives, any version are under "Nonfree Documentation Licenses".
[CC BY] is compatible with all versions of the GNU GPL
CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3: this means you
may license your modified versions of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials under GNU GPL
version 3, but you may not relicense GPL 3 licensed works under CC BY-SA
4.0.Because Creative Commons lists only version 3 of the GNU GPL on its
compatible licenses list, it means that you can not license your adapted CC
BY-SA works under the terms of “GNU GPL version 3, or (at your option) any
later version.” However, Section 14 of the GNU GPL version 3 allows
licensors to specify a proxy to determine whether future versions of the GNU
GPL can be used. Therefore, if someone adapts a CC BY-SA 4.0 work and
incorporates it into a GNU GPL version 3 licensed project, they can specify
Creative Commons as their proxy (via
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses) so that if and when Creative
Commons determines that a future version of the GNU GPL is a compatible
license, the adapted and combined work could be used under that later version
of the GNU GPL.
That last example shows how licensing can be tricky. I know you are a USER
who wants everything to be EASY but what if they are not EASY?! And for the
nth time, you still do not seem to understand that:
"free software according to the FSF" does *not* mean "GPL-compatible"
different ethical rules apply to non-functional works (rms distributes all
its articles/talks under the CC BY-ND, which is "non-free" if applied to
functional works such as software and documentation).
