Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about software distributions on the list

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:27:45PM +0000, Steffi Tinder wrote:
> I find the terminology difficult. For me it doesn't really feel
> right to call Debian a 'free software distribution with caveats' or
> 'distribution that contains free software' (if the instructions are
> regarded a recommendation). I understand the reasoning behind it but
> I think if something as basic as finding appropriate names is too
> difficult, then it can be helpful to take a step back.

The simple solution would be not to call Debian a free software
distribution at all.

The recommendation says that *if* you do promote a system that nearly
meets the guidelines as a free software distribution *then* you must
also mention that it does not meet the requirements.

I don’t intend that you say “Debian is a great free software
distribution with caveats.” That does indeed sound awkward. More that
you say “Debian is a great free software distribution, but it also
supports non‐free software,” or “Debian is a great free software
distribution but it doesn’t quite meet the Guidelines for Free System
Distributions.”

Those might seem awkward too, but if you don’t want to mention the
non‐free aspects, don’t try to make it out as a free software
distribution.

> The MFS wiki page says "for example we see some GNU/Linux
> distributions as a good Free Software choice whereas FSF officially do
> not".

That statement was conceived quite some time before this started, and
has been discussed by the Manchester Free Software team. The agreement
with the statement is not unanimous, in fact, I think only one person
fully agrees with it.

I consider the example used in the proposal for that text, Debian, a
good software distribution, and an acceptable free software choice
insofar as you can by default and very easily run a completely free
Debian system.

I haven’t yet found a distribution that doesn’t meet the FSF’s
approval that I would consider a good free software choice.

> If that is the case, why do terminology and guidelines used on this
> list have to be based on the official FSF approved distributions
> list? Why not come up with an independent definition?

I think I answered that in the rationale:

    “Free system distribution and free software distribution are
    defined based on the Guidelines for Free System Distributions[1]
    because they exist and are already being used by some parts of
    the free software community to determine whether to use or
    endorse systems.  [There are no “better” rationale, the decision
    to use them was largely arbitrary, and there will always be
    someone that takes issue with any choice that does not sit with
    their own subjective opinions.]”

I think they are a reasonable fit. The reasons why various systems
do not meet the guidelines are reasons I would exclude from any
other definition of a free software distribution I cared to make up.
It’s so close, it’s easier just to choose the definition that is
already there.

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