[Fsf-Debian] gap assessment

[Karl Goetz]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 00:29:41 LHST, Osamu Aoki <osamu at debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Before discussing what action to take etc., let's make an gap analysis
> between FSF thought on FREE SYSTEM DISTRIBUTON and current Debian by
> going back to "Guidelines for Free System Distributions" published by
> FSF.
>     http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

Thanks for doing this comparison. I have comment ob a few points and cut out any i wasnt commenting on - i hope its not seen as attacking in any way.

> Let's check one by one for Debian system (this means "main" only)

>   * License Rules ------- Debian qualifies without question
>       FSF requires free license only for direct functional applications.
>       Debian requires free license for all.

It would be worth checking which licenses there is disagree ment on, as i recall there are some.

>   * Nonfree Firmware ---- Debian qualifies without question
>       (Debian removed firmware blobs so nothing to complain here.)

pretty sure the debian kernel team and linux libre people disagree on what makes something firmware in many cases, though i have not looked in the last 12 months.
Linux libre also rejects known problematic firmware , dont know if its a requirement for the free distros list or not though.

>   * Documentation ------- Debian has serious conflict
>       FSF allows some non-free documentations to be included but Debian does

non-free in debians opinion :)

>       not.   Exclusion of such non-free documentations is not explicitly
>       listed as problem.   There is fundamental conflict between FSF
>       restriction for instructions "for installing a nonfree program on the
>       system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so." vs. 
>       Debian Social Contract 4.

I expect a number of list readers wont know what this is (iirc priority to free software and users?)

> Possible remaining issues:
> 1) Exclusion of GFDL documentation of some essential software packages.
>       This may be weak objection point from FSF based on "Complete Distros".

Sadly i dont see them fixing their licence to be debian compatible any time soon :/

> PS:   As far as package dependency, there are no non-free packages listed
> as the primary choice under depends nor recommends.   There are very
> limited cases which lists non-free packages as the second choice.

Thats being discussed in other places, we should probably avoid doing it here too :)

thanks,
kk