| |||||||||||||
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessmentZacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessmentPosted Jul 4, 2012 17:36 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)Parent article: Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment
It seems to me that the main beef the FSF has with Debian is that the Debian project tells users that the »non-free« and »contrib« trees exist. We (I'm a DD) can be 110% anal-retentive about moving doubtful stuff out of »main«; as long as the installer or the official docs even so much as hint, no matter how many caveats and disclaimers are attached, at the fact that there is pre-packaged non-free software one can conveniently install on a Debian system, that makes Debian »non-free« in the eyes of the FSF. In my opinion at least this stance is at odds with Debian's goal of supporting its users, who according to Debian should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to avail themselves of the content of the »non-free« repository, and according to the FSF must be saved at all costs from becoming corrupted by its allure, by concealing its very existence from them. I wish the project every bit of luck but I think that given the FSF's known history of being ready to compromise this will,in the end, amount to tilting at windmills.
(Log in to post comments)
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 18:03 UTC (Wed) by e1304631 (guest, #85470) [Link]
"Should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to avail themselves of the content of non-free..."
I don't think the FSF wants to control what software people install on their machines -- even if they could. Rather, it seems to be about whether the system should recommend/encourage them to do so, not whether they decide to do so on their own.
A distribution that says it's committed to free software but hosts non-free software, includes it in the online package database, and tells people how to install it in their documentation seems hypocritical to me.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 19:16 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] A distribution that says it's committed to free software but hosts non-free software, includes it in the online package database, and tells people how to install it in their documentation seems hypocritical to me. It is perfectly possible to run a Debian system that consists strictly of DFSG-free software, and in fact that is the default way the Debian installer works. Unless the »contrib« and »non-free« repositories – which are technically not part of Debian – are explicitly added to the system's configuration, their packages don't even show up in the package database. In the past the FSF has taken exception at the Debian installer asking the user, in a neutral tone (i.e., no »encouraging« or »recommending« going on), whether they want to enable the »contrib« and »non-free« repositories. The FSF would much rather see these repositories go away altogether, or, failing that, see that question go away. This is against Debian's »social contract«, and in my opinion is even more hypocritical. Debian wants to allow its users an informed choice while the FSF would rather patronise them. Unless this impasse is removed somehow I don't see this project succeeding.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 21:05 UTC (Wed) by e1304631 (guest, #85470) [Link]
"don't even show up in the package database."
They do show up in the online package database: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
"In the past the FSF has taken exception at the Debian installer asking the user, in a neutral tone (i.e., no »encouraging« or »recommending« going on), whether they want to enable the »contrib« and »non-free« repositories."
So at worse Debian is recommending it (the question's being *asked*, after all) or at best that means Debian's trying to be neutral. I don' see how can people be expected to learn about the problems of proprietary software if Debian is (at best) being neutral on the topic.
"Debian wants to allow its users an informed choice while the FSF would rather patronise them."
Not at all. Please see my original comments: "I don't think the FSF wants to control what software people install on their machines -- even if they could. Rather, it seems to be about whether the system should recommend/encourage them to do so, not whether people decide to do so on their own."
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 21:43 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Please see my original comments: "I don't think the FSF wants to control what software people install on their machines -- even if they could. […]" How is trying to hide the very existence of non-free software not wanting to control what software people install on their machines (however futile that endeavour may turn out to be in the end)?
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 22:04 UTC (Wed) by e1304631 (guest, #85470) [Link]
"How is trying to hide the very existence of non-free software..."
I think we're talking about different things. You should read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
Modified to include the word "Debian" instead: "The issue here is not whether people should be able or allowed to install nonfree software; a general-purpose system enables and allows users to do whatever they wish. The issue is whether Debian should guide users towards nonfree software. What they do on their own is their responsibility; what Debian does for them, and what Debian directs them towards, is another matter. Debian must not direct the users towards proprietary software as if it were a solution, because proprietary software is the problem."
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 6, 2012 18:26 UTC (Fri) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link]
Hope that Debian does not try to solve this 'bug' then.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 21:08 UTC (Wed) by e1304631 (guest, #85470) [Link]
You may disagree with me, but what I said in my original post can't be made wrong but arguments of that kind.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 21:49 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Hold on, you mean actively working to make sure users get higher odds of being screwed by non-Free Software is *not* at odds with the Debian Social Contract in both of its priorities, users and freedom? IOW, do you somehow get the impression that getting screwed by non-Free Software is good for users or for their freedom?
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 22:30 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] IOW, do you somehow get the impression that getting screwed by non-Free Software is good for users or for their freedom? I use free software where I can and proprietary software where I must. Your claim that Debian, a project that has been committed to free software from the start and that I have been using and contributing to for more than a decade (on the free-software side, incidentally), is »screwing me« is insulting to both the Debian project and me. It is not up to you to judge what is »good for me or for my freedom«. Please do not patronise me.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 22:35 UTC (Wed) by e1304631 (guest, #85470) [Link]
anselm, please collect yourself. No one is insulting or patronising anyone. I think you're taking this a bit too personally.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 23:50 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
*You* insult and patronize him, quite clearly.
It's too bad that LWN.net's kill file feature doesn't work on your contrived account. Would you mind to give a pattern of your "guest accounts" so that I don't have to read your drivel in the future?
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 6, 2012 7:23 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
Yes, enumbers, you are patronizing. Please self-examine.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 23:07 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
I wrote that non-Free Software screws users. Do you dispute that?
Now, you might want to take back your remark, for jumping from “non-Free Software screws users” to “Debian screws users” might be misinterpreted by some as an admission that Debian is non-Free :-)
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 4, 2012 23:58 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] I wrote that non-Free Software screws users. Do you dispute that? Yes. It's too black and white for me. I'd much rather use free software than non-free software, given the choice. I do however occasionally need to do a few things with non-free software that has no free equivalent, and I don't have the luxury of being able to take a year or more off my actual work to write one. The non-free software lets me do these important (to me, anyway) things that otherwise I would not be able to do at all. It's not a wonderful or even greatly desirable state of affairs but considering that I'm using free software 98% of the time I'm better off with the non-free software for the other 2% than without it. Now, you might want to take back your remark You claimed Debian was »actively working to make sure users get higher odds of being screwed by non-Free Software«. I.e., Debian aids and abets non-free software in »screwing« users like me, presumably by asking us in the installer whether the »non-free« repository (not part of Debian GNU/Linux) should be enabled. This is the question the FSF doesn't like, and (AFAIK) the main reason why the FSF thinks Debian is »non-free«. (Note that answering »yes« to that question does not imply non-free software will actually be installed on the system in question; its mere existence in the far-off distance is so odious to the FSF that it must not even be offered for installation, lest that system be tainted.)
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 1:10 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
If non-Free Software doesn't harm you (if screwing is too colorful or too black and white for you ;-), why do you prefer Free Software?
Say, consider the same piece of software, available from two separate vendors, at the same price. One vendor respects your four essential software freedoms, the other doesn't, and this is the only difference between them. Which one would you choose? Why?
Don't you agree that the lack of freedoms in the latter, that presumably leads you to choose the former, would be detrimental (and thus harmful) to you, no matter how much you need the features offered by the software?
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 3:22 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Say, consider the same piece of software, available from two separate vendors, at the same price. Nice strawman. Let's consider another hypothetical situation. I need to pay taxes and the only way to do it is via proprietary government-supplied package. Debian's choice: give me the package in "non-free" and help me to stay in my house. FSF's choice: "liberate me" by sending me to jail. Who's screwing me? Debian? Or FSF? P.S. Note that choice is not at all hypothetical: this improvement over reality. Currently aforementioned package only exist in Windows version and thus it's not in Debian. But what if government will achieve partial enlightenment and produce Linux package?
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 5:05 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
Can a scenario before a question even be a strawman? (And yet you chose to dodge the question; one gets to wonder why; “it wasn't for me” won't do, for you chose to answer the post anyway ;-)
Anyway, your situation is not hypothetical. It was real for me. What did I do? Implement a Free Software version of the government-supplied software. http://fsfla.org/~lxoliva/snapshots/irpf-livre/ *while* fighting the obligation to use the government-supplied software in court.
Now, as for strawmen... How exactly does Debian's refraining from distributing any particular piece of non-Free Software land you in jail? Surely you're not saying than when people become Debian users they become incapable of finding, installing and using software that is not in Debian repositories, as in, if it's not in a Debian repository, it doesn't exist. (nevermind the doublethinking on whether or not nonfree is a Debian repository :-)
Why oh why, if you chose to use the government-supplied non-Free program, wouldn't you install it from the government site, like everyone else presumably does, or perhaps from some repository *truly* external to Debian (maintained by Debian fans that happen to live under the same authoritarian government)? How do you turn that into a requirement for Debian to contaminate its repositories with non-Free Software, betraying both of its primary goals (freedom and users)? How does your strawman feel now? :-)
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 7:43 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Don't you agree that the lack of freedoms in the latter, that presumably leads you to choose the former, would be detrimental (and thus harmful) to you, no matter how much you need the features offered by the software? Don't try moving the goal posts. Your contrived scenario has nothing to do with what I posted earlier. Of course if the two packages differ only in that one is free and the other is non-free, it makes more sense to pick the free one. However, I already explained that I personally use non-free software only if it does something I need and there is no free software available which does the same thing. Hence your premise doesn't apply to the situation I was talking about. You may argue that in this case it is better to write a free piece of software that implements the missing functionality. This is true in an ideal world where programming takes no effort. In the real world I don't always have the time and wherewithal on top of my regular project load to, say, reverse-engineer and reimplement a complex undocumented proprietary communication protocol to do something that is only an ancillary part of my actual work. In other cases I have written free software that does what I require. This is not a black-and-white world.
Proprietary software considered less useful Posted Jul 5, 2012 13:18 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Don't you agree that the lack of freedoms in the latter, that presumably leads you to choose the former, would be detrimental (and thus harmful) to you, no matter how much you need the features offered by the software?I don't agree at all. Proprietary software is less useful than free software, but it is not harmful. Having to use unrar from the nonfree repos because the free unrar doesn't work for me, I am not harmed by the former. True, I lose some of my freedoms to study and modify the code, but usually I don't want to exercise those freedoms so I don't care -- I just want to decompress the fine .rar archives. Is the free version actively harmed because (having the nonfree binary) nobody cares enough to make it work? True. Again, is it harmful to users? Nope, it is just less useful than it would be otherwise. Other proprietary software can be actively harmful because it is full of security holes (like Acrobat), it places impractical restrictions on how we use software (like DVD players), or locks people down to proprietary formats (like Office), but being proprietary per se is not so relevant -- many of the same effects can be achieved with free software.
Proprietary software considered less useful Posted Jul 5, 2012 15:21 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Hmm. It is harmful to users if they want to unrar from a platform for which the non-free version doesnt exist.
Proprietary software considered less useful Posted Jul 5, 2012 17:34 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That means that proprietary software can be harmful to some users -- who don't even have access to said proprietary software. However those users do have the motivation to write a free replacement... Not that I deny that effect, but it is, you will agree, a long shot.I would even prefer the moral argument: proprietary software is harmful to the hearts and minds of users who accept the state of affairs. But I think it is enough to say that proprietary software is less useful than free software, and work from there. Being a card-carrying member of the FSFE and a long-time Debian user, I like Debian's stance, although I would welcome a large, dire warning about nonfree repos.
Proprietary software considered less useful Posted Jul 5, 2012 17:19 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
You might want to run these commands:
apt-get install unar ; apt-get purge unrar
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 6, 2012 15:39 UTC (Fri) by RonP (guest, #81968) [Link]
I disagree with this. Take the case of Broadcom Wireless devices used in older Dell laptops. The reality is, if you had one and wanted Debian the only option was to use Broadcom's non-free drivers. I spent hours trying to figure out how to do this. Why should Debian be penalized for Broadcom's refusal to open source the driver? In my opinion Broadcom was the culprit not Debian and Debian was right in trying to help me deal with the practical issue of making my system work. Sometimes there are limits in choices.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 6, 2012 12:04 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
> A distribution that says it's committed to free software but hosts non-free software, includes it in the online package database, and tells people how to install it in their documentation seems hypocritical to me.
The non-free section is useful to me, as somebody who has an entirely free system. Example: a few days ago I thought "maybe I'll try this MAME thing." I found to my suprise that it wasn't returned by 'apt-cache search mame'. I searched on Debian's website, and found that it was in the non-free section as the license is noncommercial. So I could easily find the reason for its exclusion, and happily say "screw you mame" and not worry about installing it.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 2:38 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
When I installed Debian unstable on a machine here recently it prompted me to install non-free software (some driver which I apparently don't need, since my ethernet works fine without it) and it continues to whine at every apt-get invocation.
So perhaps the FSF's expectations are a bit too high, as far as I can tell Debian still has a ways to go to meet even a lesser standard.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 13:18 UTC (Thu) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link]
Your description is too vague, please provide specific example output.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 13:47 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
Well, obviously I'm not going to do an reinstall to get the message from the install time, but the nag at every update is:
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/tigon/tg3_tso5.bin for module tg3
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 14:01 UTC (Thu) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link]
That just states the fact that the tg3 driver might not work properly without those files. I fail to see how that's 'prompting to install non-free software' or 'whining'.
BTW I think those messages only appear when the initrd is updated or something like that, not every time APT is invoked.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 14:02 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
Erp. To make it clear, during the installer the prompt was quite clear that the drivers were non-free. I haven't personally evaluated the relevant licensing situation for this driver, but it prompted me for something Debian itself considered non-free, which wasn't necessary, and I continue to get messages about it.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 5, 2012 17:06 UTC (Thu) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link]
As far as I understand it, the tg3 driver requires binary-only firmware for some (half?) of the hardware it supports. All the Debian installer can see is "you have hardware for which the tg3 module is appropriate, perhaps you'll need the firmware for that".
Ideally it would be able to tell that your particular hardware was one of the models that works without additional firmware and keep quiet about it, while still giving the same prompt to people whose hardware wasn't going to work otherwise.
Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment Posted Jul 13, 2012 0:46 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] As far as I understand it, the tg3 driver requires binary-only firmware for some (half?) of the hardware it supports. The firmware file dependencies are declared statically per-module, so we can't determine whether a specific device might or might not need a firmware file. Only a few very early Broadcom GbE chips need those firmware patches. The others presumably still run non-free firmware but it's installed in some form of NVRAM. The main reason for warning on upgrades is that new driver versions may require new firmware blobs. Perhaps we should try to avoid repeatedly warning about the same files.
|
|||||||||||||