Re: [GNU-linux-libre] A call to free software, and its users

[Diego Saravia]

*do you include wget in your distribution?

if so, you are encourgaging users to download propietary software, blame you

*do you include gnash in your distribution?

you are encouraging users to download flash videos, and so encouraging
producres to use propietary software, an all of them propietary
formats, blame you

*do you distribute propietary images, or images with trademarks?

you are encouraging people to enjoy them, blame you


We live in a connected world


2009/8/18 Sam Geeraerts <address@hidden>:
> I've been following the "Freedom issues" thread from a distance. It was also
> brought up in a conversation with Paul O'Malley (one of the guys who set up
> gNewSense). We concluded that it'd be useful to look at the basics to
> provide some clarity.
>
> We're all familiar with the four freedoms:
> [0] The freedom to run the program as you wish.
> [1] The freedom to study it and change it the way you want.
> [2] The freedom to give copies to others.
> [3] The freedom to give your own improvements to others.
>
> We value and promote these freedoms and so recognize that non-free software
> oppresses the user.
>
> Let us try to understand this whole "suggesting non-free software" and what
> it means to a user. If one was to suggest a fully proprietary system, all
> people on this list would be in shock. So let's not do that. Let's look at
> the field of endeavour. In a lot of GNU/Linux distributions there is a lack
> of understanding of what a Free Software system is, at least if we are to
> judge it by the FSF's four freedoms.
>
> How can I prove this? There are programs that should not be in some systems,
> and they were not put there by users, they were put there by developers. For
> instance: Downloader for X (a.k.a. d4x) and Ivman.
>
> Now it is the case that even Wikipedia has notes on why some of these
> programs are non-free. So we understand that a license which is vague or
> non-existent is not free. For reference, see gNewSense and GLX. It took a
> lot of work, but that software is now fully free after being removed from
> gNewSense.
>
> So what is it that means that a distribution should action the removal of
> software? Most GNU/Linux distributions don't do a lot of navel gazing. Paul
> told me that gNewSense was formed with that in mind. When Brian and Paul
> were putting gNewSense together, they were almost ready for release in their
> initial view when they removed the "restricted modules" and the Multiverse
> component of Ubuntu. The matter was raised on IRC and a Dutch developer
> pointed out to them that work needed to be done on the Linux kernel too. No
> further reference was made to this. They started digging through the source
> and found binary blobs (Binary Large Objects). They started to remove these
> from the kernel. Then they released their first release with the caveat that
> the only bugs they want are Freedom bugs.
>
> So why were these blobs bad? Simply put: they had no source code. As you
> should be able to "edit" and most people can't parse blobs, Brian and Paul
> felt that these had to go (see the deblobbing script, which became
> linux-libre). However, more issues occured.
>
> Let's look at Firefox. The issue with it has nothing to do with trademarks,
> because they don't make software free or non-free. They just restrict what
> you can call it. Software is about users having functionality, not about
> having the same name as upstream while changing the program time and again.
> So Firefox has an "API" called "addons". When we examine this, a lot of the
> software that addons "add" is not Free. So, if we freedom lovers include
> Firefox in our distributions, then we have a problem: we are including
> software which suggests to people that installing any addon is OK. We know
> that some of this software is not good, so this is a bad idea because it
> encourages non-free installations. It makes it harder to explain what Free
> Software is when we compromise for a popular program, or code that enables
> some non free software. Therefore we should abandon these paths. By all
> means reverse engineer it and provide a free version.
>
> So if we suggest these addons, by having that code included, then we are
> saying to users that it's OK to install the addons. To discourage this
> behaviour, the code that points to the addons is removed. Because of the
> trademark, the name had to be different. In version 1 of gNewSense there was
> Burning Dog. In version 2 there's a pointer to GNU Icecat. So this addon
> behaviour is no longer an issue for users.
>
> If a user comes to us and says "I use XYZ", we can then explain how non-free
> software takes their freedom away. So suggesting non-free software at kernel
> level or in the packages is not OK, because it oppresses our users. Perhaps
> it is better to lead by example than to be tainted? At least we get to have
> a relevant conversation with people.
>
> We can all approach this as rational human beings supporting Free Software.
> Some people suggest that you should really proclaim your view as being
> supreme, and justify it using the 4 freedoms to prove your case. You should
> never, ever encourage someone to install non-free software. People have the
> freedom to do what they want, but we hackers should never oppress our users!
>
> A casual observation of the list suggests that people are not making
> allowances for the fact that we do not all speak the same native language,
> (blame that on history  ;-)  ) please make calm claims and calmer counter
> claims of each other, it does nothing for the cause to be emotional about
> your views or other peoples views. This only creates misunderstanding and
> division. It does not help our community in its battle for the universal
> adoption of Free Software. We are attacked from the outside enough without
> presuming to make enemies of each other, which are most likely minor
> misunderstandings.
>
> It may be useful to remember the other person may not be able to express the
> view they want to as accurately as they might want, and you may not be
> understanding that communication as well as you think, in particular if the
> message was not sent with 100% accuracy, which although we strive for it,
> English is buggy and there is no upstream to fix it.
>
> Happy Software Freedom Day Every Day!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sam Geeraerts
>
>
>



-- 
Diego Saravia
address@hidden
NO FUNCIONA->address@hidden