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

[Simon Ward]

MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:


>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.

I don't agree with "mere instruction" not being counted as suggestion. To 
instruct someone is to tell them to do something. In fact, it's stronger than 
suggestion.

>Yeah, and domains, names and trademarks are exactly the same, right?

I didn't say that (though they might be considered so, trademarks are all about 
names (and other marks), and domain names are defined as names).

>It's disappointing to find this "intellectual property"-style equation
>confusion even among this group.

What!? You're kidding yourself if you think you can hide from the fact that 
names become attached to things in common usage. If Debian becomes synonymous 
with free software and it isn't all actually free software *that* is confusing. 
That's a good reason not to advocate Debian as a free software distribution 
just yet.


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

There is more than just one maggot in one fruit, but you seem to be trying to 
bury that as inconsequential.

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

Who's trumpeting? Which of the endorsed systems is now shipping these?

That you criticise others for bugs, but won't accept that criticism is... At 
the least hypocritical.

Mistakes happen, right?

The problem is, these distributions want to save some time, so they try to base 
themselves off another distribution. Unfortunately, they choose Debian, or 
worse, Ubuntu, and end up having to remove stuff that doesn't fit the policy. 
This is hard. You've already commented on this.

>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

It's public, right, but only for those looking. Other distributions have 
mailing lists and bug trackers too.

>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.

Sure, and policy for free system distributions is covered in the guidelines. 
Governance of a project isn't directly, so long as the policy towards free 
software is enforced.

Debian's current policy is to support non-free software.

> 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?

See above (and above).

Debian is transparent about supporting non-free software. That doesn't mean it 
isn't supporting non-free software. These don't magically cancel each other out.

>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.

I don't think you have given other distributions a fair hearing. You highlight 
some bad things that happened and rate them on that. I don't see any evidence 
that you have actually tried to understand the workings of these projects. You 
are besotted with Debian, and blinded to anything else.

>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.

I said in a previous mail: it might be that Debian as a whole is not yet 
willing or ready to be a free system distribution.

If it's not, and it is as transparent and honest as you say, then it should not 
claim to be.

>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?

Ah, see, the FSF is playing a clever trick here: it's getting those in the 
know, the distributions who like to claim they're all for free software, to 
actually be fully supportive of free software, and negative towards non-free 
software. In doing so, the FSF is trying to mould the distributions into extra 
channels for advocacy, communication, education, etc

>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.

It's the "distributions that you might think should be free but aren't" list.

Simon