[Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list (was: Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one?)

[Simon Ward]

> I love Free Software. But I also love Ubuntu (not Unity, not
> Canonical). I've learned that it is okay to talk about/promote
> Debian but not Ubuntu. That is useful knowledge and there is no way
> that you can learn this from the wiki page. It might be worth
> clarifying actually.

I can’t really be neutral here, because I like and use Debian (I’m using
it now), and I would not install Ubuntu on any of my own systems, and
would be reluctant to install it for anyone else.

Having said that, I don’t think it is unacceptable to talk about Ubuntu.
I do think it is unacceptable to talk about Ubuntu as a free software
system, because it isn’t. As a group aimed at promoting free software,
we should not be promoting Ubuntu.

This a bit murky, so I will try to come up with something that could
evolve into some guidelines. This is a long post, so if you don’t feel
up to reading all of it you might want to skip to “Guidelines:”


The first place to look is the List of Free GNU/Linux distributions[1]
on the GNU web site. I think we can agree that it is acceptable to
promote these.

The grey area is with systems that contain both free software and
non‐free software, or don’t sit with the free software philosophy. The
common ones are covered in Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other
Systems[2]. Both Debian and Ubuntu are covered in this page. These
should not generally be promoted as free software distributions.

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
[2]: http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

The first sentence in the explanation for Debian is:

    “Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely
    free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out
    of the official Debian system.”

I think this intent to be free software is key, and why I am prepared to
give Debian some leeway. It is also nice to know that people within
Debian are actively working towards resolving the remaining issues. See
working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment[3] (there is a link to
the mailing list where discussion is taking place in that post).

[3]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html

Ubuntu lacks this intent, and “provides specific repositories of nonfree
software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree
software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels.”
It actually goes in the other direction. While the active promotion of
non‐free software remains, and it is perceived as a free software (or
open source in their literature) system, it causes confusion and harms
free software. I’m not prepared to give it the same leeway as I would
Debian.

I don’t think we should strictly follow the GNU project / FSF guidelines
when deciding what we can talk about or promote because I don’t think
that is helpful for discussion.

We should still be able to compare and discuss the merits free software
and non‐free software without being unduly concerned that we might be
breaking our own rules by promoting non‐free software. We also risk
stagnation if we cannot talk about where free software fails and point
out where non‐free software betters it.

It might make us feel a little bit better if we can just enter into our
mythical utopia dream world and completely ignore non‐free software,
but the fact is, non‐free software exists and interacts with and affects
free software and its users.

We should also be able to talk about free software on non‐free systems,
which some of us use for various reasons not necessarily in our control.

We should be able to say how non‐free software is detrimental to us.
This is perhaps a bit negative (definitely not promoting it if we’re
putting it in a bad light though), and it is often better to concentrate
on the benefits of free software, but sometimes necessary to get the
point across.

I do not think there is an easy answer to the question “when does
pointing out pros of non‐free software become promoting it?” In the
eyes of some, merely mentioning something is promoting it, but I don’t
think that is helpful. Promoting for these purposes might be thought of
better as meaning “actively encouraging the use of”. Ultimately, I think
we will just have to use our better judgement. We can at least avoid
blatant promotion.


Guidelines:

Neither Debian nor Ubuntu should be promoted as *free software
distributions* on this mailing list. Note my highlighting, this is quite
specific. This goes for any system not in the List of Free GNU/Linux
Distributions[1], or rather that fails to follow all of the Guidelines
for Free System Distributions[4].

Debian may be promoted as a distribution that aims to be free software,
so long as it is also made clear that Debian fails to follow all of the
Guidelines for Free System Distributions[4]. In general, this should
apply to any systems that actively aim to be entirely free software
distributions, but do not meet all of the guidelines due to one or two
minor failings.

Please avoid promoting Ubuntu, or any other system that does not strive
to be completely free.

Feel free to talk about free software on Ubuntu and other non‐free
systems, or how to cajoule the systems into being entirely free. Take
care to avoid promoting this situation, it’s possible and better just to
install a free software system.

Do bear in mind that this mailing list is not intended to be a support
list, more a discussion about Manchester Free Software itself and the
political and social issues surrounding free software. While many of us
are happy to help with users having issues with free software, some will
be reluctant to assist those trying to run free software on a non‐free
system and vice versa.

When discussing any non‐free software, please make it clear that it is
non‐free, and be sure to mention free software alternatives where they
exist.

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
[2]: http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
[3]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
[4]: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html


Does this sound reasonable? Is it too strict, or too open to
interpretation? Are the requirements to mention failure to be completely
free, or free software alternatives too onerous?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature