[Fsf-Debian] gap assessment

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Let me mention some concerns from FSF POV has been specifically filed as
bugs using the user tag.  You can see them all at:
 http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=trisquel&user=trisquel%40trisquel.info

This, I understand, is the answer to the call by Debian Project leader's
call "working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment".
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:23:12PM +1100, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, 00:29:41 LHST, Osamu Aoki <osamu at debian.org> wrote:
...
> > 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
...
> > 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.

My gap analysis is solely based on the text of the above mentioned GNU
Guideline and Debian current situation.  GNU Guideline seems to be more
relaxed than what we require for FREE for License Rules since it has
exceptions for non-functional data etc.  Please be specific where is the
disagreement.
 
> >   * 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.

Let's find out such case and file wishlist bug report like the above.
At least I do not see it listed in the above bug list yet.

"Grant H." <sirgrant at member.fsf.org>, are you on list?
Is it OK to add more of these FSF concern bugs to this user tag?
(This ML is member only.  Please subscribe first)

> >   * Documentation ------- Debian has serious conflict
> >       FSF allows some non-free documentations to be included but Debian does
> 
> non-free in debians opinion :)

This is a Debian jargon.  My understanding is that GFDL with invariant
section is "an appropriate free license" for FSF since the requirement
for FREE is different from software.  Debian does not make this
distinction for non-functional data.  Debian applies the same rule as
software for everything and calls GFDL with invariant section to be
non-free. (I consider this part to be minor problem the the following
one.)

> >       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?)

 Debian Social Contract : http://www.debian.org/social_contract

FSF Guideline has very extensive requirements to hide existence of
non-free application from the user and to advocate for free software.

On the other hand, Debian Social Contract 4
| Our priorities are our users and free software
| We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
| community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
| will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
| kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works
| that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a
| fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to
| create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works,
| without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will provide
| an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal
| restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

Here Debian committed "not object to non-free works".  This seems to me
very fundamental gap.

For example, after prompted by the bug report,
 http://bugs.debian.org/686481
I made my best effort to recommend FREE software etc. in my
documentation to cope with FSF concerns and made "2.1.5. Debian is 100%
free software"
 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_debian_is_100_free_software
but this did not seem to be enough.  Digging this bug, I realized FSF
Guideline seems to require hiding non-free software.

Osamu