[Fsf-Debian] few arguments to FSF

[Paul van der Vlis]

Op 10-08-12 05:04, Dmitry Smirnov schreef:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Here I'd like to emphasise few thoughts:
> 
>  * We protect freedom when we can but survival goes first.
> 
> Let me explain this point. GPL aims to protect freedoms but in some cases 
> restrictions imposed by GPL may threaten the very existence of project.
> FSF recognises such cases and as a compromise they created LGPL just to 
> guarantee some essential rights but not more.
> 
> Just recently I had a pitiful example of "survival goes first" idea:
> recently I bought HP CP1025NW Colour Laser Printer - a decision I regret now.
> Because I know HP printers are well supported from 'main' in Debian and also 
> because I already have an InkJet HP printer which never gave me troubles from 
> drivers side I expected that new Laser printer will work with cups-drivers 
> right away.
> 
> Unfortunately it didn't work without proprietary driver which I had to 
> download from HP. I had to resist temptation to return printer right away: it 
> arrived on Thursday and by Monday morning we had to print few hundred pages. 
> Without this printer we had to fall-back and do the job over the weekend with 
> two old and slow InkJet printers. Failure of one of them would jeopardise the 
> event with attendants representing ~80 organisations. Reluctantly I kept the 
> printer. Survival goes first.

There are many color-printers well supported in Debian. What we often
miss is good information.

In this case there is enough information, but not everybody will easy
find it. I would look here at the "driver plugin" column:
http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/supported_devices/laserjet.html
And here: http://www.openprinting.org/printers/
On both places there is enough information about this printer. But this
not always the case!

What I would advice, when you have a little money: buy another printer,
test it, sell this one second hand.

> Please bear with me as I'm getting to the point.
> 
> The above example demonstrate the situation when it is extremely difficult to 
> avoid non-free software/driver. 

Yes, but only because you bought wrong hardware ;-)

> Worth noticing that HP driver was not 
> installed from our 'non-free' section but directly from hp.com web site.
> 
> 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.

I can understand that. The point is that many people who use Debian do
not buy such hardware, so they do not need such drivers, so they don't
upload them to non-free. It's a circle.

> How is this matters? 
> 
> IMHO in Debian we need 'non-free' section for survival.

I don't think we need it *in Debian*. We need it, and we need good
quality, but it could also come from another good organization.

I think we should move non-free parts from Debian, and put it into the
repositories of something else, I call that "nonfree.org".

> 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. 

For me flash is important. It's the only closed source software I use on
my PC.

> We protect freedom when we can. (flash is also not available from 
> non-free)

It is from contrib. It's a open source package what downloads and
installs the closed source flash plugin.

> However Debian need 'non-free' section for survival. 
> 
>  * It allows us to have a place for GFDL-licensed FSF's documentation.
> 
> One can argue that documentation is merely a convenience but I'm convinced it 
> is a necessity.
> 
>  * Censoring information is not Debian's job. We can be considered neutral in 
> regards to non-free software when we inform about it but leave decision to 
> user. 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.
> 
> '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.
> 
> I like to know my non-free components and I receive a weekly reminders about 
> non-free I have, sent by lovely 'vrms' utility. This luxury I wouldn't have 
> without 'non-free' section in Debian. Unfortunate example of proprietary 
> printer driver demonstrates lack of control over non-free software installed 
> not from repository. I don't even know where HP wizard installed its blob.

Hmmmm. That's not nice.

> Additionally lack of 'non-free' in Debian would negatively affect system's 
> usefulness mostly due to lack of documentation and drivers which would put us 
> into a worse position to protect freedoms and isolate bad stuff to the extent 
> of reasonable. In a way 'non-free' helps us to provide our users better 
> protection and control whenever they choose to have non-free or not.
> Freedom of choice whom to trust is also important: I'd prefer to install non-
> free from Debian when I must.
> 
> 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.
> 
>   * '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.
> 
>   * 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 think we can get rid of contrib and non-free by moving it to something
else. Something we can trust. The same as we have now but not under the
name "Debian" anymore.

But it's only a little step and not the real solution because then we
still need nonfree.org then. But it makes more clear that Debian is
about free software.

The real solution must come from alternatives for things like flash,
good information, and hardware what's tested with free drivers.

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.

-- 
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl