FSF position on non-free software and Debian (was: FSF and Debian join forces to help free software users find the hardware they need)
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> This paragraph is phrased carefully so as to make it ambiguous whether
> the FSF acknowledges that Debian's main repository is the only place
> packages come from by default. Do they?
They do, in their explanation of why Debian is not FSF endorsed.
Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely
free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out
of the official Debian system. However, [reasons why this isn't
sufficient for FSF endorsement].
<URL:https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html>
> If so, it would be nice if the relevant paragraph on [1] would be
> updated.
I think the above – in particular, “Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree
software out of the official Debian system.” – constitutes an explicit
acknowledgement that Debian by default installs only free software.
(For my part, I'd prefer these discussions take care to use distinct
terms for the Debian Project and the operating system Debian; using the
single term “Debian” for both invites confusing statements such as
“Debian distributes works that are not distributed in Debian” which are
rightly mocked by detractors.)
> I would still like to see some citation as to why they believe
> debian-installer "...in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware
> files for the peripherals on the machine". As I explain in [2], I
> don't think that's true.
Agreed, I think you make a compelling case that “Debian recommends
non-free firmware” is untrue for the installer. If there's some other
part of Debian recommending non-free software, that's a bug to be
identified specifically, and the current wording from the FSF doesn't
help.
--
\ “Human reason is snatching everything to itself, leaving |
`\ nothing for faith.” —Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153 CE |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: