[Fsf-Debian] gap assessment

[Henry Jensen]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:29:41 +0900
Osamu Aoki <osamu at debian.org> wrote:

> 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.

There are some critical points you missed:

* not steer users towards  nonfree information for practical use, or
encourage them to do so. 

Debian doesn't qualify. There are plenty of hints in Debians
documentation, official mailing lists and forums that steers users
towards nonfree information.

* Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that
are not committed to only including free software

Debian doesn't qualify. Even if non-free was hosted outside Debian, the
reference to it in the documentation would Debian make violate the FSDG.

* Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins,
documentation, and so on.

Debian doesn't qualify. Many programs in main (e. g. iceweasel) suggest
to install nonfree plugins.

* Nonfree firmware

According to Karl Goetz, who examined the Squeeze kernel, not all
nonfree stuff was removed from the kernel[1]



[1]
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-11/msg00006.html