"Moreover, it's inconsistent on FSF's part as they don't make any reference
to Fedora having non-free repos enabled easily -- like Debian. They seem to
think that Debian's non-free repos are somehow more integrated into the
system than they are in Fedora."
(Sorry, an earlier version of this message was lost when I somehow
accidentally activated the browser's Back button. Now I have to re-write this
and it won't be as good.)
On the contrary: The setups are quite different. RPM Fusion is under a
different domain name, on different servers, maintained by different people,
and not referred to in the Fedora documentation. It seems that the FSF
considers that to be sufficiently different that it's no different than if
some random person on the internet, with no connection to the Fedora project,
were to distribute non-free software. With the connection broken, it seems
they find it unfair to blame the Fedora Project itself.
In comparison, Debian's non-free exists within the debian.org domain name, on
Debian servers, maintained by Debian Developers while wearing their official
Debian hats, and referred to in the Debian documentation. So I forgive the
FSF for not buying into the Debian Project's excuse that "Oh no - that's not
mine" when other packages meeting that same criteria -- say GNOME -- that are
"within the debian.org domain name, on Debian servers, maintained by Debian
Developers while wearing the official Debian hats, and referred to in the
Debian documentation" is officially part of Debian. It seems the FSF sees
right through this too.
Perhaps if the separation were made clearer -- more like RPM Fusion -- things
would change.
"...having non-free repos enabled easily..."
It's not about how "easy" or "hard" it is to install non-free software. If
you review the FSF's criteria for endorsing a distro at
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html they make
no requiement that a distro work to frustrate someone's efforts to install
non-free stuff. The only requirement is that the Project not distribute it or
steer people to it.
And this matches their document. To quote from "Avoiding Ruinous
Compromises" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html:
"The issue here is not whether people should be 'able' or 'allowed' to
install nonfree software; a general-purpose system enables and allows users
to do whatever they wish."
"The issue is whether we guide users towards nonfree software. What they do
on their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we direct
them towards, is ours. We must not direct the users towards proprietary
software as if it were a solution, because proprietary software is the
problem."
Given the different setups it seems that the FSF considers the Debian Project
to do more 'directing' (since it's in their documentation and distributed by
the project) than Fedora does.
