fsuk-manchester
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Why I won't promote Debian as a free software


From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Why I won't promote Debian as a free software
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:14:00 +0000

Simon Ward <address@hidden>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:27:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'd still love to know which parts of the system and its documentation
> > suggest using non‐free software, excluding bugs like the
> > policy-violating example given recently.
> 
> I’d say read it, but you already said you don’t have the time. If you
> were serious about it, you might make the time, rather than claim it is
> my job to point out every single instance for you.

Yeah, I might make the time, but unsurprisingly, I choose to spend
time staying alive (I'm chronically ill, which you might not know),
having a family and earning a living too.

There's also the problem that I've pointed out instances that I found,
as you do (thank you), but some of the remaining objections seem to be
to mere instruction, not suggestion, and I think hiding instructions
will do more harm than good to the cause of free software, as I
described in the other subthread.

[...]
> That domain name is a sub‐domain of debian.org, which is the domain for
> the Debian Project. All of this non‐free software is distributed under
> the Debian name.
> 
> It really doesn’t matter how many times you claim it is separate just
> because it is “not in main”, and it really doesn’t matter how many times
> Debian does the same.

Yeah, and domains, names and trademarks are exactly the same, right?
It's disappointing to find this "intellectual property"-style equation
confusion even among this group.

> > The need to take care is perpetual.  We've seen FSF-blessed free
> > system distributions include nvidia's very non-free drivers in the
> > past, after all.
> 
> Of course, if Debian is caught breaking its policies it’s fine, its a
> bug and Debian will fix it, it’s still free (if you don’t count the
> non-free section of the archive and the other issues fsf-collab are
> working on).

It's not fine, but it doesn't mean we should burn down the tree
because there was a maggot in one fruit.

> If a distribution endorsed as a free system distribution by the FSF is
> caught breaking its policies, the fact that it is a bug for them too is
> ignored, and they get slated badly for it.
> 
> Why should Debian get favourable treatment? (Bear in mind that I am only
> counting free software criteria here.)

Because we don't start trumpeting that we've achieved 0 freedom bugs
while shipping obvious nonsense like nvidia's drivers or acroread.

Because we publicly acknowledge when we fall short of our goals,
with things like the red non-free labels and the various bugs lists.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/address@hidden

Because we have mostly open processes, so you are free to help with
bugs, join the project, or donate to our funding companies, all in the
open.

That last one is still a free software criterion: the free software
movement is a campaign for users' freedom. If you go narrower than FSF
and start looking at only the software, it can merely deliver users to
the control of another private corporation, open-source-style.  Who
cares if the spyware is open-source if they install it by default and
don't tell users?

Actually, am I asking for favourable treatment?  I feel I'm just
asking for fair treatment: don't label another distribution as being a
free system when it has similar-or-worse bugs on software freedom and
often much worse bugs on project freedom.

[...]
> > Even though I would prefer the non-free repository to go elsewhere,
> > I can accept that it was not created lightly or for silly reasons.
> 
> I can accept that Debian has other reasons for doing things than free
> software too (often mistakenly under the pretense of doing it for the
> user, when in the free software advocacy world there’s nothing worse for
> the user than lumbering them with software that erodes their freedoms).

If we could illustrate that it's a mistake, or quantify it, then we
might be able to repeat the old "drop non-free" vote and get a
different outcome.  That would undermine the "We acknowledge..."  at
the start of the troublesome "Works that do not meet our free software
standards" part of the social contract.

But I suspect that a small majority of users, even current users of
debian and all the FSF-blessed debian-based distributions, don't care
as much as FSF and even debian's current position is closer to FSF
than its users.

If more free software advocates were educating users about the
benefits of freedom, instead of some focusing so much criticism on
those who are near freedom but not quite there, maybe we would have
solved this bug by now?

Like I feel it's pretty awful that
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html doesn't even mention
the most common operating systems: Microsoft Windows, Apple OS X and
Apple iOS.  Actually, it doesn't even mention the current top two
GNU/Linux distributions on distrowatch: Mint and Mageia, which I think
are both a bit behind us on freedom.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]