This is exactly what happens now, no? [LWN.net]

This is exactly what happens now, no?

Posted Nov 8, 2010 23:59 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by kirkengaard
Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"

Help that says "You made a choice that we don't have free support for yet, but here's what to do in the meantime," is much more likely to do The Right Thing in the long run.

Yes, this is right thing to do (that's why I don't like FSF's idea that Debian is "unclean" since it includes non-free repository), but till now the message was "here is working thing - don't think about freedom, Ok"? I actually like the fact that firmware blobs are moving to separate repository (and in Debian they will probably marked "non-free"), but it means that people actually admitted that Linux is "open core" already - yet they don't like the consequences.

I don't see what the hoopla is all about. Yes, Linux is "open core" software. Yes, it is the problem and we should think about the ways to solve it. No, it's not the end of the world and no, it's not a reason to drop everything and switch to Linux-libre... just like the fact that Flash is proprietary is not a reason to stop visiting YouTube. But to say that this situation is "just fine"... I don't see how can you say that. If it's Ok for firmware blobs then why it's not Ok for nVidia drivers? And if it's Ok for nVidia drivers then why not for Flash? And if it's Ok for Flash then why not for ICC? And if it's Ok for ICC then why it's not Ok for MS Office?

People have different tolerance levels (witness huge amount of activity behind office suites and compare to stagnation of "free flash replacement" front), there are no absolute freedom and there are no absolute slavery - and it's just so happened that the mix usually described as "open code" includes Linux kernel - that's all.

(Log in to post comments)

Unclean Software

Posted Nov 9, 2010 5:15 UTC (Tue) by gmatht (guest, #58961) [Link]

that's why I don't like FSF's idea that Debian is "unclean" since it includes non-free repository

Thats OK, Debian gets to call FSF unclean due to their use of GFDL.

If it's Ok for firmware blobs then why it's not Ok for ... MS Office?

Well, my view is that this progression never becomes "Not OK", rather it becomes increasingly less useful for software freedom the less parts of the stack can be modified. Further more, I'd consider even fully CSS software to offer more freedom than Software-as-a-Service which in turn often offers more freedom than not having any access to the software. The only point when it becomes truely "Not OK" is when it relies on misleading the user as to what rights they have, denying them the "freedom" to make an informed choice as to whether to use the software.