On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:47:43AM +0300, sdc wrote: > Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that > Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big > progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel) but > still isn't free software because users have the option to install > proprietary software from debian's server and this is a bit confusing for > beginners in this free software world. > My beginner question is, why doesn't Debian remove the proprietary software > hosted on it's servers? Don't they want to follow the FSF word? There are different opinions on what "free software" is, and Debian (DFSG and Social Contract) and the FSF do differ here. The FSF in general has a somewhat more black-and-white view of what is free and what is not, while Debian does tend to a somewhat more pragmatic view. Conversely, Debian considers some things to be unacceptable for free software which the FSF does not. The difference in attitude might also be the consequence of the FSF view esentially being imposed by a single individual (RMS) while what Debian does is ultimately the will of many people, with somewhat differing viewpoints on this (and all) matters, ranging from being completely anti proprietary software, to indifference, and which is decided democratically after open debate. The non-free section of the archive is something which in general we would, on the whole, prefer to do away with. And over time, this *is* happening as free software replacements for existing proprietary software arise. On the other hand, we do still have a need for some non-free bits. My system would be largely unusable without proprietary firmware, and I also continue to need sun java (the free alternatives are not yet a replacement for my needs). And GNU manuals. But the free java implementations should be as good at some point, at which point I'll switch. So it will reduce in size over time. But each user has the *choice* of using it, or not. We aren't forcing people to use any proprietary code. But should it be needed, it's there as an option. We did have a vote a few years back on whether to remove non-free or not. At the time, it was kind of likely that the result would be to remove it, but the actual result was to keep it. I was intending to vote for removal myself, not being in favour of proprietary software, but after weighing up the pros and cons, it made sense to keep it around. Ultimately, Debian made a pragmatic choice which was to do what benefited our users. Ironically, the FSF itself is now a major user of non-free given that we can't permit non-modifiable files (GFDL invariant sections and front and back matter) given that this is in direct conflict with the DSFG. The FSF have a somewhat Orwellian attitude to proprietary software-- which involves not even acknowledging its existence. While not liking proprietary software is understandable from a philosophical point of view, to completely ignore it is not particularly helpful to users, and may even hinder migration to free software alternatives. In this respect, I feel Debian has made a reasonable choice: we don't promote proprietary software, and we only use free software by default, but we do understand that sometimes its use is necessary, even if we would (in the medium to long term) like to see it go away. Hopefully one day we will be able to remove non-free when it no longer serves a useful purpose, and we no longer have any need for any proprietary code on our systems. But at the present time, there's still some need for it. Even if we wish that wasn't true. Maybe one day the FSF will also realise that documentation deserves the same four freedoms as the software it accompanies as well. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature