Re: Free Software criteria -- about "Software distributions"

[MJ Ray]

Davi Leal <address@hidden> wrote: [...]
> For example, the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution removes such BLOBs before 
> building the linux-image kernel packages.
>
> Not all GNU/Linux distributions are non-free.

How much have you checked that claim?

The gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution removes *some* such BLOBs:
http://svn.gnewsense.svnhopper.net/gnewsense/builder/trunk/firmware/firmware-removed

Ones on debian TODO lists but not on the gNewSense list include:
drivers/atm/pca200e.data
drivers/media/dvb/ttusb-budget/dvb-ttusb-dspbootcode.h *
drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c
sound/pci/cs46xx/cs46xx_image.h *

* - gNewSense lists these as false-positives, but I didn't find any
explanation and they look like sourceless code blobs to me.

> > > The Debian organization offers the download of non-free software packages
> > > (non-free) in the same http/ftp servers than the free software one
> > > (main).
> >
> > Wrong.
> > The default repositories exclude both contrib (free software which depends
> > on non-free software) and non-free (non-free software).
> >
> > Then the user must _MANUALLY_ add them. It's not promotion of non-free
> > software.
>
> I am not talking about the default configured repositories. I am talking 
> about 
> the packages served from the debian http/ftp servers. Debian serves non-free 
> software.

So does every GNU http/ftp mirror except gnu.org, but note that
  http://www.gnu.org/server/mirror.html
points people to ibiblio.org and ftp.funet.fi as primary mirrors. Both
of those also serve non-free software.  Yes, both GNU's network
seeds and almost every other GNU mirror serves non-free software, just
like almost every debian mirror.

Are you punishing debian but not GNU just because the debian project
doesn't point ftp.debian.org at a mirror without non-free?  That's a
bit contrived.

[...]
>  > Q: Doesn't even Debian include some non-free software?
>  >
>  > A: No.
>  >    We do allow some non-free packages to use our distribution
>  >    infrastructure, but they are not actually part of Debian proper.
>
> The above answer is contradictory!

Third-party packages can use the bug tracker, mirrors and mailing
lists without being part of the operating system, without being part
of the installation CDs or DVDs.  Where's the contradiction?  It's
unusual for an operating system to do that, but debian is unusual.

>  >    [...] On the other hand, many packages in non-free have
>  >    migrated into Debian proper when their authors changed their
>  >    almost-free licenses to make them actually free, and some have
>  >    had their functionality painlessly migrated to newly available
>  >    free alternatives.      
>
>  >    For this reason, other Debian developers want to retain the
>  >    status quo. 
>
> This last sentence must be read too. So, some Debian developers want to 
> retain 
> such non-free packages!

Yes, 303 at the last count, although probably not all for that reason.

The developers who wanted to keep non-free on the mirrors are those
listing option 2 as a higher preference than option 1 in
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_non_free_tally.txt
(Look at the openness!)  Those are the people we need to convince.
Bashing and flaming their work will not convince them, will it?

BTW, it's not very surprising that "some debian developers X" for any
X.  Among 1000+ people, it is true for some strange values of X!

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/