[Fsf-Debian] few arguments to FSF

[Adam Bolte]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:04:47PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> As FSF supporter I share their passion to fight non-free in any form.
> I recognise the harmful nature of non-free and I wish we could be completely 
> liberated from non-free.

I too am a FSF supporter, a Debian GNU/Linux user and feel the same way.


> To me FSF position towards Debian feels unfair because of great effort we
> all dedicate to keep non-free away from users and from the main project.

I don't think the FSF are being unfair necessarily. They are basically saying
"if you want confidence that you are installing completely free software, the
distributions on this list are our recommendations". You can indeed install a
modern Debian distro and achieve 100% freedom quite easily, but it's also
probably not too difficult to get mixed up with proprietary software given all
the references to it on the project website, and package recommendations for
other non-free packages.


> I wish I could install the driver from 'non-free' section because in this case 
> I would have greater control over non-free component I had to install anyway. 
> Arguably this control would be marginally better but nevertheless better.
 
Agreed. There have been times in the past when I have had to deal with
non-free drivers. I hate it, and when I need to I want to be darn sure I know
exactly where it is installing bits to and be relatively confident I can nuke
it completely once free software replacements are available. deb packages make
this much easier and somewhat safer.


> IMHO in Debian we need 'non-free' section for survival. 

> As Richard Stallman noted there are categories of non-free software which we 
> use for convenience. For example I'm sure with little sacrifice most people 
> can live without flash - for some this may be an inconvenience but not 
> necessity. We protect freedom when we can. (flash is also not available from 
> non-free)

I don't use the proprietary Flash player, but I do have the Gnash plug-in for
occasions when I need it (and run Flashblock by default) so it's only
activated when I want it to activate. Unfortunately, the non-free Flash
installer *is* still packaged (or downloaded via a package anyway) and
distributed by the Debian project - even if it's not technically a part of the
distribution. The package name is 'flashplugin-nonfree'.

If the Debian project made it clear that the contrib and non-free repositories
were to be purely used for software for which there is no free-software
alternative, and not having this non-free software would prevent certain
hardware from functioning, I would personally feel much more comfortable. As
it stands however, it feels like non-free could be used for practically
anything that is allowed to be redistributed.

 
> Particularly in installer the dialog about availability of non-free 
> network driver is significant for project's survival because without it user 
> would have to retreat to less free operating systems which would be a 
> disservice to our users - a something we can easily consider to be harmful to 
> the project. We're still committed to protect freedoms when we can.

Yep. I feel the same way with regards to non-free software that is required to
get your computer working for which there is no free software replacement - of
course you are going to be needing it (unless the hardware is not important to
you such as a webcam or secondary sound-card). I do feel that non-free
software should be offered *only* in such circumstances, and with a big red
warning dialog box. It beats steering users away to a non-free operating
system if we can help them achieve a computer that's 99.x% free.


> 'non-free' section actually helps to protect freedom by containing and 
> controlling non-free software. At least whatever non-free we must install we'd 
> better install from 'non-free' because it is reviewed, fit to the 'non-free' 
> section criteria (there are heaps of software not suitable for 'non-free')
> and probably have documented explanation of what's specifically qualifies it 
> for non-free.

Yep. However I personally feel that if we are to rely on non-free for more
than the above, we are doing our users a disservice by encouraging them to
install some proprietary software they don't need, simply because it's now
more convenient to do so. If non-essential non-free software is considerably
harder and/or more dangerous to install over free software alternatives, I
personally don't have a problem with that, and perhaps other distributions or
3rd-party repositories can instead cater to people with those values.

 
> Freedom of choice whom to trust is also important: I'd prefer to install non-
> free from Debian when I must.

Where "must" is the key word. 99% of the time, non-free should only be
required during the initial install if people truly care about their freedom
(and are stuck with the hardware they already have). The other 1% non-free
might be required is if the user obtains a hardware upgrade that also requires
new non-free hardware, however by more clearly stating that non-free drivers
are bad we could help end users to avoid such incidents.


> In conclusion I think we need to emphasise the following arguments to FSF:
> 
>   * the very existence of 'non-free' section may be considered as necessary 
> compromise (similar to LGPL case) because some essential things like FSF GFDL-
> licensed documentation can only fit there.

I concur that the repository is required for some hardware, but non-free goes
well beyond that. We don't need an Adobe Flash installer, or non-free fonts,
etc. I think we should either get rid of all those non-critical packages, or
spin off the non-free repository to some maintainers outside of the Debian
project. Then perhaps the Debian project would restrict itself to maintaining
those truly essential non-free packages only - an only for so long as they are
strictly required - and otherwise limiting resources controlled by the Debian
project to free software packages only.


>   * 'non-free' section represents the best effort to contain 'non-free' 
> and therefore provide a greater control over it. This is a necessary 
> compromise with non-free and at this time dropping it is not a viable 
> alternative because it will cause more harm than good.

Again, only a few non-free packages fall into this category. The vast majority
of non-free packages unfortunately do not, as it stands today.

 
>   * While we can't get rid of 'non-free' we can control it as much
> as possible. For example we can adjust the criteria what can go to 'non-free' 
> and why if that would help us to reach the compromise with FSF.

I believe this hits the nail on the head. However, we need to go further than
adjusting the criteria of what can go into non-free, and actually review
everything that currently exists there. Or, perhaps drop everything and then
simply re-add packages as deemed essential and meeting the newly defined
criteria.

 
> I hope some of my thoughts above may inspire a good argumentation for our 
> dialog with FSF.

Thanks for sharing.

-Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/attachments/20120810/8ee40dcb/attachment.pgp>