Hi Soon,
I too haven't tried gNewSense yet, and I don't know its release policy. But
all I say here in this forum should equally apply for them as well.
Let me go backwards from 3 to 1. :)
Such a compromise is one way, without turning back for corrections. So yes I
agree, due care should be taken. I'm sure such a compromise -if ever made-
would be evaluated from all angles diligently by FSF, so I'm counting on them
about the technicalities.
As for FSDG classification / certification, I think we basically share the
same point of view. I too don't believe in Debian's main repository getting
full clearance from FSDG and also I'm not suggesting FSDG to be specifically
adapted for Debian's needs, but certain compromises can be done by all
parties involved, leading to a better cooperation community-wise (not just
Debian). For instance, FSDG can make assessments based on repositories (as
opposed to the whole distro) so that each distro can have layered
assessments. E.g. Debian main (base system) gets "Acceptable for
freedom-savvy" status, while other repositories (contrib and non-free) get
"Unacceptable". Such layered assessments should be fairly easy for repository
based distros. Also, FSDG could ask for some prerequirements to be met for an
"Acceptable for freedom-savvy" certificate, such as recommending free
software *first* in a reference list if there are free viable alternatives
for a given task. And Debian documentation adapts to that requirement. Things
like that. The gist of it is if all parties can make even minor compromises
and collaborate, then the whole community benefits from this.
Assuming Debian main repository gets the "Acceptable for freedom-savvy"
clearance, a derivative distro like Trisquel depending on Debian's main
repository, would automatically get the same status, and the rest would
depend on private repositories of each derivative distro. If their other
(private) repositories are like Debian's contrib/non-free then they get
clearance only for the base system. Now this is where I expect Trisquel would
thrive. Trisquel's private repository(ies) would be comprised of select
applications picked from Debian's "Unacceptable" contrib and non-free
repositories, which are then cleaned from non-free elements and served in a
private "Acceptable" Trisquel repository (perhaps a couple of them, one being
"for everyone" other being "for freedom-savvy"). So, while other distros can
only get clearance for their base systems, Trisquel would get it for the
whole distro. And the price to pay would be dramatically reduced due to most
of the work (base system) is delegated to Debian - even physical repository
serving to the world.
This would reduce the burden dramatically off the developers' shoulders.
This, coupled with a "minimally personalized" distro strategy, should result
in nearly all the work going into software/driver liberation efforts. This is
what Trisquel is for, this the "reason d'etre" of Trisquel. So, concentrating
all the resources on the core issues (which is sw/hw liberation) should
eventually -theoretically?- bring the success and mass adoption.
It would be fantastic if there were so much resources that both liberation
and personalization can be perfected at the same time. But we must accept the
reality. My understanding is resources are tight and a lot of packages are in
wait queue for liberation and/or maintenance. This is precisely why I
advocate for an unpersonalized plain distro, but I need to cover that in
another post as this is already getting huge.
