> and I believe the FSF should not endorse it
It should be obvious at first glance to anyone with an understanding of the
FSDG and familiarity with Debian-based distros that PureOS does not follow
the FSDG. Many of the most basic freedom issues in Debian can be checked and
confirmed in PureOS without even installing it.
* There is no "pureos" suffix to the version of their [linux package][1],
indicating that they do not modify Debian's kernel. I have already explained
why this violates the FSDG.
* It is not just messages introduced by Debian that guide users toward
Debian's non-free repo. A while back I was researching a WiFi card, and
stubmled onto [this thread][2] in Purism's official forum, in which a Purism
employee instructs a user to add Debian's non-free repo in order to install
the "firmware-nonfree" package. (Note that these instructions would not work
if PureOS used Linux-libre.) I do not frequent Purism's forum so I don't
know how common an occurance this is, but after finding this thread I skimmed
through the forum I found numerous threads in which the community helps users
install non-free software, something forbidden in the Trisquel forums.
* PureOS includes package managers configured to point to repositories
containing non-free software, including [snap][3] and [pip][4]. Pip is an
understandable oversight, as it is normally used by developers and it is not
particularly known for being a source of non-free software, but Snap is just
clearly not okay, being targeted toward ordinary users and full of non-free
software.
* The PureOS homepage has a [screenshot][5] of something called
"Purebrowser", which looks like a redranded Firefox, so it seems likely that
Purism is aware of the freedom issues with popular browsers and has their own
alternative, which is good. However, Debian's versions of [Firefox ESR][6]
and [Chromium][7], both with known freedom issues, are present in PureOS's
repo.
* There are many freedom issues already discovered in Debian-based distros
and patched by Trisquel. Some of these issues are introduced by Ubuntu, but
most apply to Debian as well. Not all of them are obvious, but since
Trisquel has already discovered and fixed them there is no excuse not to be
aware of them, especially since PureOS used to be based on Trisquel (IIUC).
They are visible [here][8]. Many of Trisquel's package helpers are for
rebranding or backporting, but I arbitrarily picked a couple that I happened
to know address freedom issues present in both Ubuntu and Debian: [hplip][8],
which prompts the user to download and install a non-free utility, and
[unp][9] whose control file induces the user to install several non-free
packages. I was pleasantly surprised to see that PureOS [actually has fixed
unp][10], but [hplip is unmodified][11] from its Debian version.
I'm sure I could keep going and find more freedom issues, but neither Purism
nor the FSF is paying me to do their job for them, and I think I've gone far
enough to prove my point. None of these are obscure issues. With the
exception of the [forum thread][2], which I stumbled on by pure chance a
while ago, all of these are the first, most obvious things that Purism should
have fixed before applying for FSF endorsement and that the FSF should have
checked before granting it. It took a little over an hour for me to check
these things, without even needing to download a PureOS ISO. It seems hard
to argue that Purism has made the "good faith effort" stipulated by the FSDG,
or even that the FSF made a good faith effort when evaluating PureOS. I can
only conclude that
(a) the FSF is aware of these issues and chose to endorse PureOS anyway, or
(b) whoever at the FSF was responsible for evaluating PureOS prior to
endorsement did not apply even a minimal level of scrutiny while doing so.
Either way, the title of "FSF-endorsed distro" has lost credibility for me.
If Uruk rebases on Ubuntu, uses Linux-libre, and bans packages with known
servere freedom issues, it might not be quite as adherent to the FSDG as
Trisquel, Hyperbola, and Parabola, but more so than PureOS. If PureOS gets
to keep its FSF endorsement, I see no reason to withhold the same endorsement
from Uruk in that situation.
[1]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/l/linux/
[2]: https://forums.puri.sm/t/wifi-not-working/1249
[3]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/s/snapd/
[4]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/p/python-pip/
[5]: https://www.pureos.net/images/screenshot-browser.png
[6]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/f/firefox-esr/
[7]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/c/chromium/
[8]:
https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/blob/etiona/helpers/make-hplip
[9]:
https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/blob/etiona/helpers/make-unp
[10]:
https://source.puri.sm/pureos/packages/unp/-/commit/1746fa3ee48ad69167f3a5d1dc53bf89bfde1652
[11]: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/h/hplip/
