On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 04:47:05PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
I've seen https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html where Hess makes this statement but I haven't seen anything written by Hess clearly explaining why the Debian Constitution is "toxic".
i've spoken to the FSF about this: from what i gather, the changes required are actually very very simple: all they have to do is add in a simple popup message whenever someone clicks the "nonfree" section, issuing a warning to the end-user that the consequences of their actions are leading them into unethical territory.
... how simple would that be to add?
Pick up the Debian netinst iso / the first Debian CD / the first Debian DVD.
You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components.
You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends.
On (both) the Thinkpads in front of me, that would result in non-working wifi but everything else would work. I could plug in one of a few wifi dongles and have a fully free Debian.
On the Intel desktop machine away behind me I couldn't get hardware acceleration on the Nvidia card - I could care less.
On a Cubietruck / Pine64 / Chip / Raspberry Pi / Pi3 - I couldn't get functionality without non-free which I could get with Allwinner / Broadcom firmware. Debian doesn't supply "non-free" components: in each case you're using firmware distributed with the hardware. Without non-free firmware / forked kernels, all of the ARM hardware we have is pretty much unusable. I'm hopeful that you can prove differently Luke.
But according to published documents I point to below, a popup might be quite simple to add but insufficient to allow Debian GNU/Linux to appear on the list of FSF Free System Distributions. I'll explain why I believe this to be true.
In https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html we find the following objection, "Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is "not part of the Debian system," but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily find these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database and its wiki".
John Sullivan went into more detail on the FSF's objection at Debconf2015:
So, in Debian's case, the lack of endorsement from us is primarily because of the relationship between official Debian and unofficial Debian -- the 'non-free' and 'contrib' repositories. And that relationship to us seems too close for our comfort. There are spots in the Debian infrastructure where those sections even though technically separate are integrated very closely with main. So, for example, in package searching, in 'recommends' and 'suggests' fields within packages that are displayed to users. So even though, in Debian, we have an idea that these are separate that's not always as clear to users on the outside and they can end up being sometimes inadvertently or sometimes just led to install nonfree components on top of the official distribution.
Source: http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian... (12m18s)
Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware - note (_users_ not developers) ?
It's very clear on the website and in documentation back to 1994
www.debian.org/CD/netinst - no mention of non-free
https://www.debian.org/CD/faq#official - unofficial CDs may contain additional hardware drivers, or additional software packages not part of the archive.
I believe the FSF is right to point out Debian's cognitive dissonance. Debian gets to:
- host repos containing nonfree software,
- include UI with pointers to said repos in the installed repo list,
- list packages from the nonfree repos as alternatives to free software
packages,
- and also claim that these repos are somehow "not part of the Debian system"?
I too believe that Debian is hosting nonfree software and integrating nonfree software with free software and this is indistinguishable from what other distros not listed do (such as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux).
If Debian wanted the FSF's approval Debian could remove the nonfree and contrib repos from Debian entirely, and remove mentions of packages from these repos from the free packages. Any packages one installs from Debian's repos post-installation would have the same restrictions too (thus addressing what Sullivan mentioned immediately after the above quote).
It was good of Debian to move the nonfree blobs to the nonfree and/or contrib repos in Debian 6.0 ("squeeze") in February 2011 but the OS installer makes the same kinds of recommendations the FSF objects to. I understand the consequences for users looking to most conveniently install Debian GNU/Linux plus whatever nonfree software to let the OS run on their hardware. But I don't see a popup fixing this. I see this as another convenience vs. software freedom tradeoff (wherein security is certainly on the side of software freedom too).
Repo redirects to sets of packages that only mention free software packages with no references to nonfree software could work but that still involves providing work for thousands of packages, as you say.
Genuinely: run through a Debian install from the netinst / CDs. Please point out to me where non-free software will be installed without an explicit action to include nonfree software on the part of the person installing. The screen mentioning non-free mentions that hardware drivers that may be required may be non-free but you have to opt in to install them.
All the best
Andy C
[still not speaking for the Debian project]
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk