Of hypocrisy and the FSF

I suppose the question comes down to whether FSF should start recommending distributions which are fully free by default and don't have any *official* repositories which are enabled by default containing non-free software.

In that case the list of recommended distros would be extended quite a bit. It is interesting to note, however, that Debian Etch will as far as I know include certain binary blobs in the system by default. It is something even they admit is a compromise to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Will FSF use Debian etch would be an interesting question then. Maybe they will, but just remove non-free blobs from it, as many other Free Software supporting individuals already do.

I used Arch which mixes proprietary and free software in same repositories, but I avoided installing non-free components from it to my own system, which is all that mattered to me. Now I am on Ubuntu Edgy and I have removed the restricted modules package. I'm also considering taking a deeper look into the system to remove the specific binary blob files (with the exception of the one I need, the ati firmware) which pretty much leaves me with a free system.

So it's certainly possible to run a fully Free Software system even if your distribution of choice isn't one recommended by FSF because it serves a non-free repository.

In the end I'm not yet sure what would be my definitive answer to the above question, but I'm interested in this discussion.

Thanks
Danijel

When you start coming in to the world of GNU/Linux 'Free Software' most likely means software for no price. People new to this world don't know the differences between proprietary, open source and free software. With these ideas in mind I understand why the FSF want's to recommend 'totally' free distributions such as BLAG and gNewSense - if you only make free software available in the repositories it reduces the chance of inadvertent proliferation of proprietary software.

But there are problems with this. Since the new user doesn't know what Free Software is, and they've been using e.g. the Adobe PDF reader on Windows, they go out and download the 'free' version for GNU/Linux which of course is proprietary and all the good of having a free distribution is lost.

On the other hand if someone who knows what Free Software may not need a 'totally' free distribution, they may use e.g. Debian because they can still run a free system with it because they know how not to install proprietary software. I think this is the category which FSF are in. The question is "when are you 'mature' enough to use such a distribution and not install proprietary things on it". The official front via the 'recommended distributions' shows the FSF don't think the rest of us are 'mature' enough, thus in my view they don't trust us as users to make the right decision when it comes to software.

I use Blag since I don't wan't the hassle of reading every license of every tarball which comes my way, or trying to remember if a certain dependency for some software in my package manager is free or not. I know this is lazy, but I just want a computer which is free and works.

Thus from all of this I think the FSF are slightly confused as to who they are targeting their recommended distributions.

dylunio

"The Free Software Foundation acts as the benevolent force guiding the computer industry."
No, it doesn't. The FSF doesn't care about the "industry", it doesn't "guide" the "industry", either. All the FSF cares about is software licensing and the freedom of software users. Of course the FSF actively exercises political influence in order to achieve their goals. And no, they don't restrict themselves to the "industry", they are going after everyone of us. However, to imply that they "guide" a whole "industry" as a whole for every matter conveivable doesn't sound very educated.

The list of GNU/Linux distros they recommend is quite correct. Only the distributions listed do not include any non-free software in any form. For instance, Debian does include non-free software in two ways atm:
1. There are binary firmware blobs in the kernel that are non-free. This issue will be tackled in etch+1 but the Debian project has decided to compromise for etch itself in order not to delay the release any further.
2. Debian officially maintains the contrib and non-free repositories. Non-free contains software with licenses not compliant to the DFSG but can be distributed over the net legally. Contrib contains software that complies to the DFSG depending on software in non-free.
If you had installed Debian at least once in your life you'd have noticed that the contrib and non-free repos are not included in the default /etc/apt/sources.list

However, FSF's argument is quite right when viewed from their own perspective. FSF doesn't care about nifty bling and working 3d acceleration, they care about freedom. From their point of view, the only distros they can actively recommend are these making explicit efforts to exclude non-free software completely. That doesn't prevent FSF from using Debian as long as they don't enable the contrib and non-free repos. The issue with the binary blobs in the kernel is a wee bit unfortunate, but only a temporary one. That's something FSF can and will have to live with. Alas, until Linus Torvalds started off writing the Linux kernel the only way of running GNU software was to run it on non-free operating systems. According to your argument, even to start writing free software using non-free software as development tools would have been hypocritical. Well, how could the GNU project have been kicked off then in the first place?

You call the FSF a hypocrite, but your argument doesn't support that statement. Their argument is quite sound and has merit.

I don't really like when the FSF recommends one distro over another. I think it should either point the finger when it does not agree with some licensing choices or that it should simply state that they are against the inclusion of non free software in linux distros....

You can digg this post here: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Debian_GNU_Linux_in_FSF

I think you are just trying to find wholes in a cheese.

Anyone can prefer something then other thing. Microsoft is doing it all the time.

FSF must to eat your it's food.

What is good for the rest of us is not good for you?

Whatever arguments you have to use Debian, is not valid for the rest of the world?

Heh.

Further hypocrisies:

The FSF just officially sanctioned GNU Sense as their official distro. It is based on the commercial distro Ubuntu, which has its roots in Debian.

I thought I would try GNU Sense after hearing RMS on a talk show, where he was castigating anyone who would use "flash" in their browser. The first thing I tried was to see how well "gnash" was working now. And, since this was an official FSF sanctioned distro, surely installing "GNASH" would be no problem. Guess again! Firefox tried to install flash! Not only that, but I couldn't find gnash anywhere in the GNU Sense repositories.

I have communicated with RMS on quite a few occasions. He requires that you run the gauntlet of semantical minutia, and will pounce on any references made that aren't just so.

So, is my mention of the fact that the FSF is officially supporting a commercial Debian variant, and even it doesn't offer any alternative to flash, in any way nitpicking? Not when you're playing by RMS's rules it isn't!!

You're catching on straws. GNewSense is still a work in progress, as basically any software in development. They plan on replacing Firefox with IceWeasel which wont encourage downloading flash.

However, by running Firefox you are still running Free Software. Just because it allows for or even encourages installation of a non-free package doesn't mean that you have to do that. The same goes for Debian.

I don't actually agree with that FSF is being a hypocrite for not recommending Debian and yet using it. All they promote is use of only Free Software. Recommending distros that do not encourage installing any non-free software perfectly fits that goal. It is just a recommendation, not an order, not a sacred letter of some sort. If you recommend something to someone, does that mean you absolutely must be using that exact thing or else you are a hypocrite?

I have never come across such a misinformed blog.

You are the one who is being a hypocrite here. All Stallman and the FSF are doing is simply to separate the free and non-free stuff so you know what you are installing - they are not preventing you from using anything. This is very important because it governs how products can be distributed. To do this without accidentally infringing on licenses (GPL as well as non-free licenses of various types) requires the repositories to be separated. This is how free software distributions like Fedora, Debian, and Gentoo are shipped. Novell also does this with OpenSuSE. This is simply for your own protection and convenience. You add the repositories and packages which are non-free yourself, so you know when you are violating licenses or laws associated with the non-free, export restricted, or DMCA restricted. It does not stop you using non-free software, nor should it. Unlike Windows or Apple OSX, with Linux you have incredible flexibility over what packages you choose, and it is simply not practical to go through each and every package and library to check and agree it's license. Therefore if FSF did not push for this separation according to license, Linux would become unusable because of license administration issues.

The list published by the FSF lists the distributions that do not contain non-free software. QED. Its simply a categorised list. The list is either correct or it is not. That the FSF runs a distro not on the list does not invalidate the list.

You might equally well produce a list of distros that have a default blue wallpaper. If the group that produces the list of blue-wallpaper distros runs one with a red wallpaper - so what?

I think Stallman is simply identifying these all-free distros as a guide for those that do not want to have a distro conatining any non-free software. His ultimate goal is to achieve a situation where free software is all pervasive and one never needs to use non-free software, but that goal is not yet achieved and compromises have to be made.
But the list is still valid regardless.

I should note that the content on this "blog" is not necessarily written by one author. It depends on submissions. If you have something of significance to say we will publish it even if the main editor (erm.. me) disagrees with the view presented. Freedom of speech no less!

Back to topic.

In essence, the position taken by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation is that:

a) They do not use non-free software unless it is absolutely needed as a base for developing Free replacements. For example, in the early years of the GNU project, proprietary Unix was used as a development platform for creating replacement Free Software. Since modern GNU/Linux distributions contain a complete set of development tools, this is no longer necessary.

b) The do not recommend non-free software to anyone. When they make lists of recommended GNU/Linux distributions, they exclude distros like Debian and Ubuntu that include optional proprietary components, since they rightly regard proprietary software as a trap to be avoided. An inexperienced user of a distro like Ubuntu may come to depend on certain optional proprietary components without being aware of it, so they cannot recommend these. The separation between Free and non-free is more carefully preserved by Debian (who make it easy to avoid the latter), which is probably why they use it themselves.

As far as I know, they have been faithful to this policy for years, so... what is this "hypocrisy" you speak of? Their words and actions are entirely consistent. Rather than Debian, the FSF could just as well use SuSE or Ubuntu without any hypocrisy, provided they did not themselves make use of any optional, non-free components.

The FSF provides a list of completely Free Software distros as a convenience to those who are looking for one. Whether or not that list includes a distro that is useful for you, them, or anyone else will probably depend on your specific technical requirements and abilities. I doubt very much whether they care whether or not anyone uses a particular distribution; what they do care about is whether or not people are creating and/or using Free Software.

Can you grasp the difference?

I am a big supporter of GNU and the FSF, I mention something about Free Software all the time. Unfortunately, I have to agree with this article. The FSF should not be recommending something to others, and not doing it themselves.

No, you don't have a proper understanding of Debian then.

Debian puts all its non-free applications under non-free/ section for the use of its users. But it doesn't recommend or support.

In simple, Debian primarily is main/ and that is what RMS is trying to explain.

As far as putting it on the list is concerned, the distros listed are the ones which don't support non-free/ at all. Thus it makes sense to have them listed.

The FSF runs web servers that see a large amount of traffic. Even if they recommended gNewSense--do they? for all purposes?--it is still new and it might be premature to jump off their working platform right away. Who is to say they're not working on a move right now?

As it usually goes with controversial negative-leaning issues, this story has gotten quite a bit of attention around the related web. Just for the record here are the two interesting thread links:

@ LWN

@ BLAG forums.

You can find the author of the article at BLAG forums. Interestingly the topic there has been titled as "bad press for Libervis". Oh well, maybe, for those who read this, I should again note that articles published here are opinions of their authors. Bad press or not, freedom of speech is what matters here.

Oh and there seems to be a portugese translation as well.

If LXer links to a piece of MS FUD, is that bad press for LXer?

I can see a problem though:

Libervis never asks anything. Sure, libervisco, the mods, and the regular users have some opinions similar to each other and so sometimes they ask the same questions, but that doesn't mean everything published on Libervis is the shared opinion of our group.