[Fsf-Debian] gap assessment

[Osamu Aoki]

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

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

 * Complete Distros ---- Debian basically qualifies
 * License Rules ------- Debian qualifies without question
   FSF requires free license only for direct functional applications.
   Debian requires free license for all.
 * Nonfree Firmware ---- Debian qualifies without question
   (Debian removed firmware blobs so nothing to complain here.)
 * Non-functional Data - Debian qualifies since we take tougher stance
   We do not even distribute verbatim-distribution license game data
   which FSF is fine with.
 * Trademarks ---------- Debian qualifies without question
   Debian unbrand some software to avoid Trademark issues.
 * Documentation ------- Debian has serious conflict
   FSF allows some non-free documentations to be included but Debian does
   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.
 * Patents ------------- Debian qualifies without question
   FSF is not asking to exclude software based on patents but also don't
   object their exclusion.
 * Commitment to Correct Mistakes --- Debian qualifies without question
   We have been doing exhaustively check :-)  We just have tougher rules
   than what FSF requires.
 * Maintenance --------- Debian qualifies without question
   We have security updates, BTS, etc.
 * Name Confusion ------ Debian basically qualifies
 * Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream --- Debian qualifies
 * Please Teach Users about Free Software --- Not much advocacy
   FSF requires advocacy which we may not be doing enough.  This is
   mostly d-i and documentation issue.

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".
2) Documentation requirement of "What would be unacceptable is for the
   documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree
   program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by
   doing so." vs. Social Contract 4.  Dependency data
   recommending/depending on non-free packages even as alternative may
   also be considered unacceptable in the same logic.
3) Name Confusion with Debian archive having non-free software.
   (Even if we move non-free archive to different domain, SC4 requires
    us to take care their BTS.  So there will be some overwrap.)
4) Debian may not be doing enough advocacy for Free Software.

As for 1 and 4, we need to hear from what FSF thinks on these.

As for 2 and 3, these seems fundamental gap.  If FSF is uncomfortable
with these situation, there is not much we can do.

Osamu

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.