Re: Bug#686481: Clarification:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:24:30AM -0700, Grant H. wrote:
> Sorry, also to just clarify the bug and what the issue is.
Thanks. maybe I should have read link in detail so it is partially my
fault too. Excuse me.
I think we need to be clear what stage of action is going on and what
actions are expected in each communication. Let me go back a bit and
propose a bit slower steps.
> If Zak wants to get the Debian project endorsed by the GNU project[1]
> as of now Debian would have to abide by the Guidelines for Free System
> Distributions [2]. This particular package is one such bug that would
> threaten that endorsement because in the case of documentation:
>
> "All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released
> under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not
> to recommend nonfree software."
>
> So, to clarify. This is not a bug/wishlist about the package violating
> any Debian policy. It is a bug/wishlist against Stefano's idea to get
> Debian endorsed by the GNU project. The summary of such bugs are:
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
I see. Then all these bugs should be wishlist feature bug to start with.
> [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
> [2]https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
I for one wishes to have GNU endorsement but before discussing it, we
need to assess gaps between Debian and GNU. For future filing, please
consider to use something like the following to reduce friction
and use our unstable archive for bug tracking.
> --------------------
> This wishlist bug report filed is to elucidate existing sticking points
> in Debian which block Debian to be qualified as "Free System Distributions"
> by FSF.
>
> I am filing this bug report from the POV of FSF to answer the call by
> Stefano Zacchiroli for a "free-ness assessment" [1]. It is up to the
> package maintainer and Debian on how to proceed.
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
>
> Package:
> debian-reference (2.48)
>
> Problem type:
> Suggests/instructs installing proprietary software
>
> Recommended Fix:
> Remove program/package or modify to not recommend proprietary
> software
>
> Problem: In 9.7.6. "Non-free hardware drivers" states as follows:
> ==============================
> Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as
> a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external
> drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system.
>
> Tip
> Check available firmware packages with "aptitude search ^firmware" while
> enabling the non-free repository.
>
> Tip
> The NDISwrapper can use Windows XP network drivers natively on Linux.
> Check "aptitude search ^ndis".
> ==============================
As I see this problem, this is one of the issue for "separation".
Does FSF consider to change above text to the following satisfactory?
> ==============================
> Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as
> a part of the pure Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external
> drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system
> while contaminating your Free System (FSF does not endorse such
> action.)
>
> Tip
> Check available firmware packages with "aptitude search ^firmware" while
> enabling the non-free repository which is not part of official Debian
> Distribution. (FSF does not endorse use of non-free packages.)
>
> Tip
> The NDISwrapper can use Windows XP network drivers natively on Linux.
> Check "aptitude search ^ndis". Use of such driver makes your system non-free.
> (FSF does not endorse such action.)
> ==============================
I thought these are redundant since I mention these facts elsewhere. But
repeating get FSF approval, I am OK for changing while keeping facts as
is.
But if you think issue still exist since this still give IDEA or
TEMPTATION to use such package for non-FSF purist, I will not do this
change nor hide existence of non-free packages. (Seeing you listed APT
as non-free makes me worry.)
I wonder why GNU distribute many packages supporting and encouraging the
use of NON FREE Operating system such as Windows and proprietary Unix if
FSF takes such an hard line position. At least, we have no more reason
to promote use of commercial UNIX. (I for one think current support is
OK, though. My problem is inconsistent stance.) Fairly good portion of
code in autoconf.automake is support for old commercial UNIX which I see
no reason to give OS exception rationale.
I will appreciate to lower bar for qualifying endorsement which is par
with FSF's stance on handling of commercial UNIX.
Oh wait, as I see bug list:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
(This list is somewhat confusing since these may not be packaged for
Debian or Debian may have newer package.)
But this lists package with artistic license. OMG. Well I know
Artistic license was problematic for but ... Does Libreoffice in
unstable/testing still as problematic as killer factor?
I wonder if FSF takes such a hard stance on each small problem, why FSF
is not listing MONO related packages such as tomboy banshee ... which
FSF hates with reason as I understand.
I also wonder having GFDLed gcc documentation etc. with invariant
section in non-free OK for FSF. This non-free is not the part of
official Debian distribution.
Osamu
Reply to: