Re: Debian vs gNewSense -- FS criteria

[Davi Leal]

I am personally interested in knowing the RMS' opinion about the below MJ's 
comments.


My current _personal_ proposed software distribution classification is:

  "gNewSense"             as Free ???


  "Debian"                as Almost-Free ???

     Debian is a general term which refer to
     Debian GNU/Linux and all others ports
       http://www.us.debian.org/ports/

  "Debian GNU/Hurd"       as Free

  "Debian GNU/Linux"      as Almost-Free ???

  "Debian GNU/NetBSD"     not classified yet
  "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD"   not classified yet


  "OpenBSD"               as Almost-Free
  "FreeBSD"               as Almost-Free
  "NetBSD"                as Almost-Free

  "Microsoft Windows Vista" as Non-Free


MJ Ray wrote:
> at least the debian project regards containing
> non-free software as a bug, unlike many.



MJ Ray wrote:
> I think we already know RMS's opinions because they have been recorded
> many times:
>
> - FDL-with-invariants and the badgeware are not software, so it
> doesn't matter that they aren't free software and free software
> distributions may contain non-software somehow;
>
> - gNewSense is allowed to have bugs but call itself Free still, while
> debian is not;
>
> - BSD ports also "promote" non-free software and "promote" is a better
> test than "automatically install";
>
> I really don't see what will be gained from cc'ing RMS while we're
> just looping this dispute. I believe I'm never going to treat
> gNewSense and debian differently and RMS is never going to accept
> debian is a free software distribution while it tracks some non-free
> software.  The main difference between gNewSense and debian is that
> debian is more open about the non-free problems and how it's working
> on them, including compromises.
>
> I think the obvious way to solve this dispute is to stop debian
> tracking non-free software, by freeing all useful software and
> convincing debian developers to remove the rest.  Insulting debian
> developers by labelling their work as not a free software operating
> system will not convince debian developers to help us.
>
> Both of them are much better than BSD in handling of non-free, IMO, so
> it's disappointing for one to be listed in the same category.
>
> Regards,

Do we need a more detailed category list?
The current proposal is:

  * Free
  * Almost-Free  (only applied to software distributions)
  * Non-Free
  * Abstract


Should we just tag all more-or-less free software distribution 
as 'Freedomware' and let it be exposed to the public in resumes and offers?

  "gNewSense"               as Freedomware
  "Debian"                  as Freedomware
  "Debian GNU/Hurd"         as Freedomware
  "Debian GNU/Linux"        as Freedomware
  "Debian GNU/NetBSD"       as Freedomware
  "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD"     as Freedomware
  "Ubuntu"                  as Freedomware
  "RedHat"                  as Freedomware
  "OpenSuse"                as Freedonware
   ...
  "OpenBSD"                 as Freedomware
  "FreeBSD"                 as Freedomware
  "NetBSD"                  as Freedomware

  "Mac OS X"                as Non-Free
  "Microsoft Windows Vista" as Non-Free


Perhaps there are others possibilities which could solve the "software 
distributions" classification issue.