Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list

[Simon Ward]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:13:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Simon Ward <address@hidden>
> > > Debian **(without the non-free repository)** as a "free software"
> > > distribution
> 
> Note that FSF calls its blessed distributions something like "free
> system distributions".

It does that. I haven’t been consistent: I have referred to the FSF’s
document titles verbatim but then gone on to talk about “free software
distributions”. This could just be me introducing confusion, or it could
be illustrating that it is confusing to try to distinguish the terms.

> Its official position IIRC is that asking whether anything other than
> a program is "free software" is not sensible.  I don't agree with that
> because that's how we get documentation we can't edit completely
> because some of it is "artistic" or "opinion".

I don’t agree with that completely either. As far as software
documentation goes, it could be considered part of the software. For any
other other work, you can argue that it doesn’t make sense to call it
“software”. Distributions do often contain other works. I think you
really want the licences to be compatible rather than conflating
software with other types of work.

> I'd be quite happy not to describe debian as a free system
> distribution and only call it a free software distribution (give or
> take any bugs)

As mentioned, I think it might be confusing to distinguish between the
“system” and “software” terminology. Also, as mentioned, Debian
distributes non‐free software. I don’t think it makes sense to call
anything a free software distribution unless all of the distributed
software is free.

> or a distribution containing free software.

This seems fine to me, because it does contain free software. Ubuntu
also comes under this category.

> Could the guidelines allow that, please?

Maybe ;)  Really I’m hoping for more discussion, and to establish
something that most of us find acceptable given the topic of the mailing
list, rather than just three or four of us.

> And apparently it's not a free system distribution mainly because the
> project makes it too easy to discover that non-free software exists.

It makes it too easy to discover software that is non‐free. It also
provides a repository and makes it easy to install it as if the software
were part of the distribution.

This paragraph in the Guidelines for Free System Distributions[1] refers
to pointing the user at items of non‐free software, or repositories
containing non‐free software, rather than banishing mere mention of the
existence of non‐free software:

    “A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining
    any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do
    so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and
    no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs.
    Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that
    are not committed to only including free software; even if they only
    have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in
    the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins,
    documentation, and so on.”

> Like anyone didn't know already.  Heck, the Free Software Definition
> mentions non-free programs!

Sure it does, how do you distinguish between “free software” and what’s
not free? Anyway, another quote from the guidelines, in the
Documentation section:

    “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.

    For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use
    the nonfree program would move it to the acceptable side of the
    line.”

They don’t stop the documentation from mentioning non‐free software.

> Now, as I mentioned, we're rather snookered with the repository.  Its
> supporters don't want to move it, its opponents don't really want to
> work on its content at all, and since the FDL many are ambivalent
> towards FSF - so who's got any incentive to move it?

This has more to do with the organisation of the project (which I’m not
saying is bad). It just shows that not all of the Debian project is as
committed to free software.

> Actually, I agree it's distributing non-free software.  That's not the
> same as the project recommending it (almost the opposite […]), or it
> being included in the system distribution.

I disagree. By putting the effort into distributing (and maintaining!)
non‐free software, Debian is taking a positive action for non‐free
software.

> That's what we risk if we take this friend-bashing too far.

Ah, that old chestnut. If classifying distributions based on how they
meet some guidelines (or not), and suggesting that we should talk about
them that way, is bashing, we may as well stop now. While we’re at it,
we can pretend everything that nearly meets those guidelines is “free
enough” and stop work encouraging them to be more free.

> I'll cheerfully suggest that people work for the volunteer-led debian
> project rather than the company-led Ubuntu project or amorphous
> Trisquel one, but as long as they're working on or using free
> software, there's a chance it will still benefit us all.

That’s fine, though my suggestions are about how we refer to the
projects’ distributions, rather than the organisation of the projects.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature