Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) [LWN.net]

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

Posted Dec 7, 2006 13:11 UTC (Thu) by sp.at (subscriber, #36249)
Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

Now, if someone had actually read at least the first paragraph of the GNU Project's 'Free GNU/Linux Distributions' page [0], this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place.

To supply you with the first paragraph:

"These are all GNU/Linux distributions we know of which consist entirely of free software, and whose main distribution sites distribute only free software. If a distribution does not appear in this list, there's a small chance that it qualifies and we do not know it; however, almost certainly it contains or distributes non-free software."

Now, for those who still do not understand: The FSF cannot recommend Debian GNU/Linux because of the very reason mentioned in the first sentence. Debian GNU/Linux does provide users with a non-free package repository and that's the problem, nothing more or less.

Using Debian GNU/Linux without the said repository (and without installing any other proprietary software) gives you a perfectly free system - something the FSF might be using, which actually is alright.

[0] http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistribut...

(Log in to post comments)

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:18 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

I don't know about everyone else, but my personal objection to this is that it's patronizing. FSF states that it is okay for them to use Debian because they care to install free software and not the proprietary software. However, they cannot recommend that users do the same.

My question is, who are these users who would care enough to follow the Free Software Foundation's recommendations on Linux distributions and install these obscure free-software only distributions, but who would not care enough to simply not make use of the nonfree repository in Debian? I don't believe any such users exist.

I could go into speculation about the why of recommending against Debian wholesale, instead of just recommending against the use of non-free, but it will not be productive.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

Posted Dec 12, 2006 1:41 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Strange how the FSF's list doesn't include Fedora... in its discussion lists the "why doesn't <some encumbered stuff> work out of the box" complaint is rather common, it is always answered by pointing out that Fedora's objective is to include exclusively open source software.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

Posted Dec 12, 2006 13:54 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

indeed. i'm actually quite impressed by Red Hat's stand on Software
Freedom. i spoke with a Red Hat employee sometime ago, and he was very
clear: not a bit non-free stuff in Red Hat, my friend.

i asked why not supply a GPL mp3 codec? 'We're against patents, so we
don't want to include (possible) patent encumbered software. our
customers will complain to us. We can then point them to their governmet
to complain about software patents... If we would have delivered, they
wouldn't complain, nobody would know, and patents wouldn't be fought...'

well, i think that's not really amazing if it came from a FSF advocate or
a BSD volunteer. but this is from a company which wants to make money,
and i think it's very nice.