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

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:27:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> This thread may need to be parked up until the FSF-collab provides its
> list of things which are problems.

No need to wait, the FSF have already indicated some general problems,
that’s why fsf-collab was started in the first place. Those problems
still exist. How the project chooses to divide and conquer is up to it.
Even so, if it turns out that Debian identifies no real problems and
chooses not to do anything, that is not going to satisfy those who are
really after a free software distribution.

> > If someone were to come to me and ask what would be a good choice for a
> > free software distribution, with their primary aim to run all free
> > software, I feel would be it would be dishonest of me to promote Debian
> > as that choice without mentioning the caveats: some parts of the system
> > and its documentation suggest using non‐free software, and the Debian
> > Project provides non‐free software, so if you want an entirely free
> > Debian‐based system you may have to take care to avoid the non‐free
> > software.
> 
> 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.

Don’t get me wrong, I will point out instances when I see them, but I
don’t read the documentation myself all that often because I’m now quite
familiar with my systems.  Other than the odd brush with an updated
reference, I mostly get away with reading the release notes (sometimes
causing myself pain, I admit).

Having said that, I know there definitely were suggestions to use
non-free, otherwise I don’t think I would have ever used that section of
the repository. Whether the references are still there, I can’t say,
without taking up some of my own precious time.

> The project does not provide any non-free software itself, but some
> Debian Project members package some.

The project hosts non-free software, and is therefore providing it. I
can go to the repository, and a large number of mirrors claiming to
mirror “Debian”, and find the non-free section:

http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/

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.

> Even the packaging of non-free software is done with free software, as
> far as I know.

That doesn’t make non‐free software free software, unfortunately.

> 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).

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.)

> Indeed, the problem of being able to enable a non-free source in an
> optional package manager won't exist, but there are usually two
> different and worse problems: the problems of non-free software and
> details of which widespread software is non-free are not described
> anywhere by the distribution's developers; leading some users to use
> some nasty third-party click-to-install system that does not care
> about either their freedom or system stabiliy.
> 
> 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).

That might make it a better distribution in some respects, but from a
free software point of view it isn’t.

Since I just checked the social contract to confirm #4, I found the
following bug is still present:

    “5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

    We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
    do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
    created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works.
    The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
    although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
    CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
    and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs.
    Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support
    their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as
    our bug tracking system and mailing lists).”

That is a very clear concession to non‐free software. It goes on to say
about non‐free works “we support their use and provide infrastructure
for non‐free packages”, which is expressly supporting non‐free software.

> But anyway - is anyone else here watching fsf-collab?

Not subscribed, but have been checking up on the archives from time to
time.

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