Hi Huang, I fully understand your reserved approach, as I would have taken it
the same way had I been an established user.
However, all my FSDG concerns can be simply rolled into this: FSF to create a
new layer to FSDG so that it acknowledges Debian/main repo as "passable" even
if not "ideal". Turn FSDG into a three way function: ideal, passable,
unacceptable. That's all I suggest. Debian/main is hardly a breach to free
software philosophy, I presume?
So it comes to dissecting the so called "frays" in Debian/main from the
current FSDG. Firmware kernel blobs, recommendations or referrals to external
non-free components in docs, maybe providing a viaduct or pathway to external
non-free apps/addons, et cetera. I do acknowledge that these provisions make
the OS evil-tolerating, but do these make the OS itself non-free?
I have already explained the situation with firmware blobs. If we are to
accept that uploading a proprietary firmware to onboard RAM on hardware is
equivalent to cooperating with non-free hardware (and interpret it as
non-free OS), then what stops us from declaring the same for initializing,
communicating or handshaking with it? Isn't firmware upload is more or less
equivalent to hardware initialization? For instance can't we think of the
firmware uploding as sort of an initialization signaling sequence? :)
Almost similar arguments go for external referrals, recommendations,
viaducts, etc. They are all non-free-cooperative, alright I accept that. But
this is hardly a reason to gain "non-free" status for the OS itself. This
approach resulted in Debian/main flagged as "unacceptable". Please, this is
beyond comprehension.
I respect your and other's approach, but this is my own approach. Everyone is
entitled to their own thoughts. I gather that all my other suggestions are
small-time, compared to this FSDG one. :)
Not that I expect FSF buying into this anytime soon, but that doesn't stop
curious souls from thinking aloud.
