FSDG and phones running GNU

Sorry for the long post. I'm still working through my thoughts on this
issue and kept having more of them as I wrote.

This is spinning off of the discussion in the recent Purism thread, and
one paragraph will focus on PureOS, but only in order to raise a broader
issue. I don't want to start another debate about Purism here.

Once the PinePhone and/or Librem 5 ships, it will be possible to run
GNU/Linux on smartphones, which raises the question of which GNU/Linux
distributions people will run on them. Since these devices will require
firmware blobs, FSF-endorsed distributions will not be able to run on
them.

Purism promises that PureOS will run on the Librem 5, and at this time
PureOS is FSF-endorsed, but in order to for PureOS to run on the Librem
5 it will need to include firmware blobs, which will violate the FSDG,
which distros must follow in order to be endorsed by the FSF. Actually,
having looked through all of PureOS's git repositories to see what
modifications they make to Debian, I don't understand why they were
endorsed in the first place, as they have not addressed the majority of
freedom issues in Debian. I'll won't dwell on that though, as the
purpose of this thread is not to tear down Purism. The important thing
is that if Purism starts distributing PureOS with firmware blobs, it
will be even *less* FSDG-compliant than Debian, and thus presumably no
longer eligible for FSF-endorsement, based on the stance the FSF has
taken on other distros which include blobs. It's up to Purism and the
FSF how they handle that dilemma. What I want to discuss is how other
freedom-minded distros should handle the same dilemma when it comes to
the PinePhone and other future phones capable for running GNU/Linux.

On the one hand, distros which follow the FSDG already accept
incompatibility with certain hardware in order to avoid distributing
firmware blobs. By the same reasoning, it would make sense to accept
incompatibility with the PinePhone. On the other hand, whereas there is
alternative hardware we can recommend for better compatibility with
distros like Trisquel, it seems that we are likely years away from an
alternative to the PinePhone which can run a GNU/Linux distribution
which strictly follows the FSDG. In order to use the device, users have
to run *some* distro on it. Which would be better for their freedom: a
distro which includes the necessary firmware but otherwise adheres to
the FSDG, or a distro which does observe the FSDG at all? If we refuse
to target the only smartphones that can run GNU, and cede that territory
to the majority of distros who do not take software freedom seriously,
we might keep our hands clean, but are we really doing our best to fight
for user freedom?

I am not saying that a distro like Trisquel should include any firmware
blobs. That would send the message that those firmware blobs are no big
deal. If the most freedom-minded distros and users stop caring about
freedom at the firmware level, there will be less demand for
free-software-compatible hardware, so it is important for those distros
to stick to their guns and hold out for devices that can run blobless.
I wonder though, if there isn't also a place for a distro that navigates
a middle path between Trisquel's approach and the approach of most
distros.

It seems that the distros I have encountered tend to fall roughly into
one of these categories freedom-wise: (a) distros like Trisquel which
not only reject all non-free software but even reject or modify free
software which induces the user to install non-free software, (b)
distros like Debian (main repo only) which exclude non-free software but
do not otherwise take steps to avoid guiding users toward non-free
software, (c) distros like Fedora which reject non-free userspace
software but will accept non-free firmware and do not take steps to
avoid guiding users toward non-free software, and (d) distros like
Ubuntu which accept non-free software at both the userspace level and
the firmware level and actively guide users toward non-free software.

I do not know of any distros who default to the FSDG in most
circumstances, compromising only in specific situations after careful
consideration of the consequences, and with the intent that these
compromises are temporary. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any
examples where it would be worth compromising at the userspace level,
but at the firmware level, each decision about what non-free firmware to
include would have to consider certain questions: How crucial is the
hardware to having a usable system? How difficult is it to replace the
hardware in question with more freedom-friendly hardware? How many
years away are we from having a free replacement for the firmware or
hardware? How many users need this hardware component to work? If the
hardware doesn't work, how hardcore does the user need to be to stick
with the distro, and if they do, will their workaround actually be
better freedom-wise? How many users really need us to provide the
firmware? Can the ones who really want it install it themselves?

Here's an example of what that decision-making process might look like
for a smartphone whose screen, WiFi, and Bluetooth all require non-free
firmware:

The screen is crucial to having a functioning system. Until it seems
that there will in the near future be a phone running GNU that doesn't
need blobs for the screen, there seems no choice but to include this.

WiFi is not crucial to having a fully functional system, but Internet
access is, so consider what the workaround will be if WiFi is absent:
In order to access the Internet, the user will probably use the modem,
even in situations where they did not otherwise need to connect to a
cell tower. If the phone has a kill switch for the modem, this will
result in the user having the modem enabled a greater percentage of the
time, so they will be tracked more often, which is bad for privacy. The
software running on the modem is completely proprietary, so the job of
connecting the device to the Internet will still be done using
proprietary software. Since the most probable outcome of excluding WiFi
firmware is worse privacy and no better freedom, there is a good case to
be made for including it.

Bluetooth is also not crucial to having a functioning system. Audio is,
and Bluetooth is commonly used to connect to audio devices, but this not
the only way to have working audio. In addition to using the phone's
internal speaker, users can connect to many audio devices via the
headphone jack without using any non-free software. Unlike the WiFi
firmware, many users will be able to do what they need to in a
freedom-respecting way without the Bluetooth firmware. Since the device
can be functional without Bluetooth, it may be possible for some users
to install the firmware themselves even if the distro doesn't provide
the firmware for them and in doing appear to condone it. Some users
will reject the distro over it, but trying to please every user is a
slippery slope toward compromising on everything, so maybe it's better
to focus on users who care about freedom and might be willing to
compromise when necessary, but would prefer not to. Compared to the
screen and WiFi firmware, a decision to include the Bluetooth firmware
should probably be more heavily scrutinized and debated.

I know that the suggestion that any distros should ever facilitate the
use of non-free firmware is likely to be controversial here. I hope
that as an active community member and contributor here it is clear that
I care about Trisquel's values and would not open this discussion with
the intent of undermining them. I see current state of hardware
compatibility with free software, especially in the emerging case of
smartphones running GNU, as a very complex situation, and as I continue
to work through my own thoughts on the issue I would like to hear other
people's perspectives.