FSF and Debian are joining forces to expand and enhance h-node hardware lists
All free software enthusiasts should work together to spread principles of freedom, not just when they affect computers, software, and the internet.
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-users-find-the-hardware-they-need
https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140908
Good news! I think we free software movement members should often remember to emphasize the similarities between different flavors like distros or definitions of freedom. This way we won't get divided and conquered. While appreciating the common ground however I will follow the FSF which I think has framed the issue best.
I am a member!
Sorry, but if "...FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project provides a repository of nonfree software..." FSF shouldn't be collaborating with this organization when it cannot (for very good reason) endorse the distribution. This is inconsistent with FSF's guiding principles. Either a distribution is free or it isn't. There is no middle ground.
I would like to disagree.
Just because Debian is not a FSF endorsed doesn't mean it cannot help FSF with doing the right thing. Even if Microsoft helped FSF identify free sowtware compatible hardware, it would still be a good thing. Yes, it does not make Microsoft a good company, but that single action is correct and perfectly fine. It's kind of like how all kinds of organizations contribute code to GNU/Linux.
I would also like t comment on the "There is no middle ground". In my opinion, completely free distribution is always the best option, but I would still pick a partially free distribution over, say, Windows. It's not 100% free, but it's something, and that something is important, too. Debian itself, as far as I know, is free software. It just makes it easy to install non-free software, but I like it for it's many qualities.
I am a member!
If a distribution (including it's organizing philosophy, access to proprietary resources etc.) isn't 100% free, it is entirely inconsistent with the guiding principles of free software and we shouldn't use it or collaborate with the developers. Either it's free or it isn't. 'Partially free' doesn't exist.
If you can rationalize the concept of 'partially free' you have missed the point of free software (and indeed, freedom itself) entirely. I'm afraid that FSF has also missed the point in this case.
He is not rationalizing "partially free". He is saying that a same group can be named and shames for what it does wrong and receive kudos for what it does right. I agree with him. Debian is not free but it does many good things.
I am a member!
He (riftyful) wrote,
"In my opinion, completely free distribution is always the best option, but I would still pick a partially free distribution over, say, Windows. It's not 100% free, but it's something, and that something is important, too."
'Partially free' is his choice of words and he suggests that he could potentially choose such a distribution under certain circumstances.
There is no 'partially free.'
There is NEVER a good reason to choose a non-free distribution. If Debian produces a distribution that cannot be endorsed (for whatever reason), FSF is betraying the cause by collaborating on the H-node project. Debian should be shamed (and shunned) until they get it ALL right. It's not doing anything right until it does everything right. This is the fundamental standard of the free software cause.
You're sounding like an extreme religious fundamentalist. The FSF isn't "betraying the cause". The FSF is uniting with Debian on a common goal. This is a *good* and *important* thing. To insist that someone be fully in agreement with you, or perfect, before accepting help from them? That's self-destructive and alienating. It doesn't accomplish anything.
To give an example: I think the FSF is wrong to endorse non-libre cultural licenses for "opinion" works. I don't refuse to cooperate with the FSF on the common goal of advocating libre software because of this difference of opinion.
I am a member!
On 12.09.2014 23:37, name at domain wrote:
> If Debian produces a distribution that cannot be endorsed (for whatever
> reason), FSF is betraying the cause by collaborating on the H-node
> project. Debian should be shamed (and shunned) until they get it ALL
> right. It's not doing anything right until it does everything right.
> This is the fundamental standard of the free software cause.
Just by posting online the free software philosophy and guidelines one
can't expect every organization will follow them. You have to double
this with an effort to make people understand why it's important to
follow the recommendations and gradually you are turning them to your cause.
I admit Debian is making baby steps, but it's in the right direction and
can help us improve the database of hardware compatible with free software.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
"Either it's free or it isn't. "
That's a silly statement in our current digital situation.
Almost no one here runs a computer with -literally- 100% free software.
Even Gluglug and the Lemote contain some non-free firmware as far as I know (harddrive or stuff like that).
According to you, we should stop endorsing the evil non-free thinkpinguin notebooks. Sure, just the bios is non-free, but "either it's free or it isn't", right?
Many people make compromises in their lives, and we shouldn't blame them for it. The most important thing is that they try and value freedom and privacy - maybe not the highest, but anyway.
I am a member!
On 13.09.2014 13:04, name at domain wrote:
> "Either it's free or it isn't. "
FSF still doesn't endorse the distribution called Debian just because it
collaborates with the group behind that distribution, called Debian.
> That's a silly statement in our current digital situation.
"A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
being free, we consider them all equally unethical."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
> Almost no one here runs a computer with -literally- 100% free software.
"But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
community are willing to make them. For instance, we endorse only the
GNU/Linux distributions that have policies not to include nonfree
software or lead users to install it. To endorse nonfree distributions
would be a ruinous compromise."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html
> Even Gluglug and the Lemote contain some non-free firmware as far as I
> know (harddrive or stuff like that).
"We want users to be able to upgrade and control the software at as many
levels as possible. If and when free software becomes available for use
on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to
adopt it within a reasonable period of time. This can be done in the
next model of the product, if there is a new model within a reasonable
period of time. If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the
certification."
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria (100% Free Software)
> According to you, we should stop endorsing the evil non-free
> thinkpinguin notebooks.
> Sure, just the bios is non-free, but "either
> it's free or it isn't", right?
I as leader of a free software activist group (Ceata), I don't endorse
ThinkPenguin notebooks with nonfree BIOS. Neither RMS or FSF, because:
"The BIOS of a PC runs on the CPU, not on a separate secondary
processor, so this exception does not apply to the BIOS."
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria (100% Free Software)
> Many people make compromises in their lives, and we shouldn't blame them
> for it.
We shouldn't blame users, but teach them not to as part of the activism
for free software.
However, we have to blame developers who pretend to distribute free
software, but in fact recommend and distribute nonfree as well.
If we blame developers for their nonfree distribution, it doesn't mean
we should not work with them on freedom projects and try our best to
make them understand it's wrong not to be fully free.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
"We will also cover recent collaboration efforts between the two
projects and how we can improve upon them to the betterment of free
software."
https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libby/m/stefano-zacchiroli/
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
I am a member!
It's not about that.
FSF doesn't endorse Debian the distribution because of the documentation
which recommends nonfree software and because of the official nonfree
and contrib repositories.
But FSF is known to work (collaborate) with Debian the
community/group/organization so that Debian the distribution becomes
completely free. As a result of this collaboration going for some years
now, by default Debian is installing only free software (AFAIK it
doesn't recommend anymore any nonfree software during the installation
process, I haven't tested it in 5 years), so it can be used to test
hardware compatibility with free software.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
This is excellent news regardless.
By default, the Debian kernel contains no non-free blobs and if you disable the non-free (and maybe contrib) repos, you are getting a totally free distribution.
I understand that the repos are there to be enabled, but if you do not include them, then you should be fine. I think most of you have an issue with the repos being avaialable, but you should comprimise. They have to make sure those repos are avaialble for people that may need them and for deriatives like Ubuntu.
El 13/09/14 a las 19:08, name at domain escibió:
> By default, the Debian kernel contains no non-free blobs and if you
> disable the non-free (and maybe contrib) repos, you are getting a
> totally free distribution.
>
> I understand that the repos are there to be enabled, but if you do not
> include them, then you should be fine.
This implies you are not fine if you enable them.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
600 8579
Se encuentra muchos hombres que hablan de libertad, pero muy pocos cuya vida no se haya consagrado, principalmente, a forjar cadenas.
(Gustave Le Bon)
Just like you're not fine if you include a proprietary ppa in trisquel.
The problem with Debian's non-free repository isn't that it exists, it's that the official Debian documentation gives instructions for how to enable it and otherwise refers to it. In other words, the non-free repository is not separated from Debian thoroughly enough.
If a person wants to install non free software, she finds lots of ways on the internet to do so.
I don't see any practicle difference if it is offered and documented by debian instead of somebody else.
The truth is: most people won't stop using every piece of proprietary software even if they are educated about the issues that arise with it. Many people value freedom and privacy, but not everybody values them the highest of all things in their lives, and that's fine.
I can't see why the debian operating system (which is by default fully free) should become less freedom friendly just by providing a way for those persons to do as they wish.
The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and doesn't advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their method won't work in a hundred years.
"If a person wants to install non free software, she finds lots of ways on the internet to do so."
Exactly, so there's no need for the Debian Project to do so.
"I don't see any practicle difference if it is offered and documented by debian instead of somebody else."
As you say, people can find information about how to install non-free software on the Internet so there is no need for the Debian Project to also do it. To quote from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
"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 we guide users towards nonfree software. What they do on their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we direct them towards, is ours. We must not direct the users towards proprietary software as if it were a solution, because proprietary software is the problem."
El 15/09/14 a las 16:38, name at domain escibió:
> I can't see why the debian operating system (which is by default fully
> free)
It is as free by default as CodePlex is.
> should become less freedom friendly just by providing a way for those
> persons to do as they wish.
One thing is to let people choose to do as they wish and another is to
promote methods for them to become slaves. It is as good as putting a
gun in front of a suicidal patient or to promote healthy nutrition by
putting junk food on the table.
> The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and doesn't
> advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their method won't
> work in a hundred years.
The reason we have not advanced an inch is not because of the FSF. It is
because people do not value freedom. Freedom is not the right to become
enslaved.
Double agents do no good to our movement: "Many people speak about
freedom. But there are very few whos lives have not been devoted mainly
to forge chains." (Gustave Le Bon)
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
600 8579
Se encuentra muchos hombres que hablan de libertad, pero muy pocos cuya vida no se haya consagrado, principalmente, a forjar cadenas.
(Gustave Le Bon)
I am a member!
On 16.09.2014 06:09, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
>>> The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and
>>> doesn't advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their
>>> method won't work in a hundred years.
> The reason we have not advanced an inch is not because of the FSF.
> It is because people do not value freedom. Freedom is not the right
> to become enslaved.
With frequent new additions to the list of free distributions, with
existing free distribution becoming more actively developed, more
up-to-date and more feature rich, growing their user base, with other
free distributions being developed as we speak to get FSF's
endorsement, with nonfree distributions making progress in excluding
nonfree software because they want to get endorsed, I say FSF strategy
is working. Don't you agree?
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
El 16/09/14 a las 00:04, Tiberiu C. Turbureanu escibió:
> On 16.09.2014 06:09, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
>>>> The fsf is trying to dig a tunnel through solid rock and
>>>> doesn't advance one tiny inch. They have to realise that their
>>>> method won't work in a hundred years.
>> The reason we have not advanced an inch is not because of the FSF.
>> It is because people do not value freedom. Freedom is not the right
>> to become enslaved.
> With frequent new additions to the list of free distributions, with
> existing free distribution becoming more actively developed, more
> up-to-date and more feature rich, growing their user base, with other
> free distributions being developed as we speak to get FSF's
> endorsement, with nonfree distributions making progress in excluding
> nonfree software because they want to get endorsed, I say FSF strategy
> is working. Don't you agree?
Yes, I agree that this strategy has helped. My point is that it is not
non-free developers those that thwart freedom the most. It is our own
allies that think that we are extremists. They'd rather help our common
enemies that make a little effort. It is the law of the least effort.
They would help us and themselves if only it would be easier for them.
Then they are not helping, they are just benefiting from our sacrifice
just like the developers of non-free software benefit from externalizing
the costs of developing the platforms. They just pay for the part that
will make them control tAnd these mhe users.
Moderate people are non-free developer's allies when they accept those
business policies. The victim defends the perpetrator. It is the
helsinki syndrome.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
600 8579
Se encuentra muchos hombres que hablan de libertad, pero muy pocos cuya vida no se haya consagrado, principalmente, a forjar cadenas.
(Gustave Le Bon)
Please tell me, where is this place you're talking about?
Frequent additions? Actively developed? Feature rich?
The average user has one - exactly one - distribution which you can remotely call suitable for him, and that's trisquel. We all know how even this one is suffering from a lack of man power, which leads to severe issues from time to time.
All the others have major flaws; either they are as actively developed as the latin language or they're targeting a very specific group of users (dragora for instance).
Now, is trisquel "feature rich"?
Please be realistic:
Restricting yourself to the software available in trisquel - hence, to only fully free software - means abandoning a huge amount of technical possibilities of your computer; no skype, no flash, no spotify etc.
Go further and carry this restriction to your smartphone - you better throw it away then!
What people call a "digital life" is not possible this way. Choosing 100% digital freedom nowadays means leaving the digital society, that's the truth.
A lot of stuff was replied to my last post I highly disagree with, but at the moment I don't have time to comment on everything.
I picked the statement I considered to be the most flawed one.
I think you're exaggerating the downsides of not using proprietary software. Libre software lags behind proprietary software, but not to the extent you suggest. Leaving proprietary software doesn't mean "leaving the digital society", it just means leaving (or not joining in the first place) certain sectors of "the digital society". Listening to your favorite music via CDs or even traditional radio rather than streaming services. Using a crappier VoIP program or even a normal telephone rather than Skype. These are sacrifices, but they're fairly small sacrifices of practical convenience. It's not comparable to exile.
That's not to say that this lag isn't a problem, of course. We should always strive to make the switch to libre software more convenient.
I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Young adults (at least in germany) mainly stay in touch by using whatsapp or skype; if you don't use it, it's really a HUGE loss.
Especially when it comes to contacts somewhere far away, these two provide a way of doing almost real-life conversations, whereas you're basically limited to email without them. Sure there are free software voip solutions, but there are no people to talk to.
And yeah, of course you can listend to CDs, but that's almost like stoneage nowadays.
People are used to being able to listen to every music they want all the time, staying in contact with everybody conveniently and so on...
If you really want to refuse non-free software, the combo "non-free javascript + flash" breaks the web.
I would at least say that you can't use like 30 - 40 % of the internet this way.
If you refuse to use SaaSS, things get ALOT worse.
Your digital life will be so different from the people around you - I don't think you can count you in, when we're talking about digital society.
Communication is a two-way street. Why do people expect you to be the one to install and use Skype, when they can be the ones who install and use a free alternative such as Jitsi?
Having said that, I think people can be incredibly lazy and it has been for instance very difficult for me to convince family and friends to switch to free-software-based means of communication. To be honest, it's been a fiasco so far, not really because of limitations or problems with the free alternative (although that can be the case sometimes e.g. jitsi vs skype for video calls), but really because of inertia and change that seems to them to bring no benefits whatsoever. But if we don't try to show them that there are alternatives, who will?
I get some of your points but feel that you're being too harsh in stating that a commitment to free-software means being some kind of social outcast... I run Trisquel on my computers, a free-software ROM and free-software apps on my smartphone, and am able to communicate with people, without using the proprietary 'logiciel du jour' (I have no idea what whatsapp is).
As for the web, I agree that avoiding non-free JS is very difficult (by the way, it looks like Icecat in Trisquel 7 will ship with GNU LibreJS - I wonder what the browsing experience will be).
quantumgravity said:
> Young adults (at least in germany) mainly stay in touch by using whatsapp or
> skype; if you don't use it, it's really a HUGE loss.
These are extremely popular in the U.S. too, but we haven't abandoned traditional phone networks and most of us haven't abandoned email. I don't think Germany has abandoned traditional phone networks, either (I don't know about email).
Even if it were the case that everyone was using Skype and Whatsapp by default and refusing to use anything else, a good friend would take the very easy step of starting to use email, or XMPP, or Diaspora, so they can communicate with you.
quantumgravity said:
> And yeah, of course you can listend to CDs, but that's almost like stoneage
> nowadays.
> People are used to being able to listen to every music they want all the
> time, staying in contact with everybody conveniently and so on...
It's true that CDs are dated. Actually, the modern thing to do to get music you like without sacrificing your freedom is to download them through a peer-to-peer network illegally. In fact, this is more convenient than dealing with the intentional restrictions most legal methods make you deal with. I only didn't mention it because it's illegal.
But anyway, it's true that living in freedom often requires using outdated technology. But this is still a small sacrifice. Likewise, having to do something you're not "used to" is not even remotely comparable to exile; it's a small inconvenience.
quantumgravity said:
> If you refuse to use SaaSS, things get ALOT worse.
SaaSS isn't particularly common. I think you must be thinking of a service that isn't SaaSS.
El 15/09/14 a las 13:32, name at domain escibió:
> Just like you're not fine if you include a proprietary ppa in trisquel.
Exactly.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
600 8579
Se encuentra muchos hombres que hablan de libertad, pero muy pocos cuya vida no se haya consagrado, principalmente, a forjar cadenas.
(Gustave Le Bon)
In my opinion, the FSF decision was a smart move in helping and enhancing H-NODE.
Yet, lets hope this stays in order with a simple task of reporting database-hardware compatibility of devian vs FREE SOFTWARE USERS and not complicated with other soreness of betrayall, bitcheness,and foul-mouthness to the cause of FSF policies.
Commitment to Correct Mistakes (from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html)
"Most distribution development teams don't have the resources to exhaustively check that their distribution meet all these criteria. Neither do we. So we expect distros to occasionally contain mistakes: nonfree software that slipped through, etc. We don't reject a distribution over mistakes. Our requirement is for the distribution developers to have a firm commitment to promptly correct any mistakes that are reported to them."
People from the Debian Project are working on a free software replacement for VOCALOID and UTAU. The Trisquel package is at [1], but is still suggests Wine to run nonfree plugins. Without patching it is impossible to use jcadencii in freedom. So I created a repository with a liberated jcadencii at [2]. This mistake should be corrected in both Debian and Trisquel.
[1] http://packages.trisquel.info/toutatis/sound/jcadencii
[2] https://launchpad.net/~isengaara/+archive/ubuntu/utauloid