Linux Mint liberated!

20 replies [Last post]
gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

name at domain, [15.10.17 14:12]
[Forwarded from name at domain]
hd_scania@hardened ~ $ aptitude search vrms
p vrms - virtual Richard M. Stallman
hd_scania@hardened ~ $ sudo apt install -y vrms && sudo vrms
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
vrms
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 302 not upgraded.
Need to get 12.5 kB of archives.
After this operation, 39.9 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 tor+http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 vrms all 1.18 [12.5 kB]
Fetched 12.5 kB in 1s (9,020 B/s)
Selecting previously unselected package vrms.
(Reading database ... 235533 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../apt/archives/vrms_1.18_all.deb ...
Unpacking vrms (1.18) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.6.1-2) ...
Setting up vrms (1.18) ...
Non-free packages installed on hardened.mint

atmel-firmware Firmware for Atmel at76c50x wireless networking chips.
bluez-firmware Firmware for Bluetooth devices
firmware-atheros Binary firmware for Atheros wireless cards
firmware-bnx2 Binary firmware for Broadcom NetXtremeII
firmware-bnx2x Binary firmware for Broadcom NetXtreme II 10Gb
firmware-brcm80211 Binary firmware for Broadcom 802.11 wireless cards
firmware-intelwimax Binary firmware for Intel WiMAX Connection
firmware-ipw2x00 Binary firmware for Intel Pro Wireless 2100, 2200 and
firmware-ivtv Binary firmware for iTVC15-family MPEG codecs (ivtv an
firmware-iwlwifi Binary firmware for Intel Wireless cards
firmware-libertas Binary firmware for Marvell Libertas 8xxx wireless car
firmware-linux Binary firmware for various drivers in the Linux kerne
firmware-linux-nonfree Binary firmware for various drivers in the Linux kerne
firmware-qlogic Binary firmware for QLogic IBA7220, QLA1xxx, ISP2xxx a
firmware-ralink Binary firmware for Ralink wireless cards
firmware-realtek Binary firmware for Realtek wired and wireless network

Contrib packages installed on hardened.mint

virtualbox-guest-dkms x86 virtualization solution - guest addition module so
virtualbox-guest-utils x86 virtualization solution - non-X11 guest utilities
virtualbox-guest-x11 x86 virtualization solution - X11 guest utilities

name at domain, [15.10.17 14:12]
[Forwarded from name at domain]
16 non-free packages, 0.7% of 2166 installed packages.
3 contrib packages, 0.1% of 2166 installed packages.
hd_scania@hardened ~ $ sudo apt purge -sy atmel-firmware bluez-firmware firmware-atheros firmware-bnx2 firmware-bnx2x firmware-brcm80211 firmware-intelwimax firmware-ipw2x00 firmware-ivtv firmware-iwlwifi firmware-libertas firmware-linux firmware-linux-nonfree firmware-qlogic firmware-ralink firmware-realtek virtualbox-guest-dkms virtualbox-guest-utils virtualbox-guest-x11
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
atmel-firmware* bluez-firmware* firmware-atheros* firmware-bnx2* firmware-bnx2x* firmware-brcm80211* firmware-intelwimax* firmware-ipw2x00* firmware-ivtv* firmware-iwlwifi*
firmware-libertas* firmware-linux* firmware-linux-nonfree* firmware-qlogic* firmware-ralink* firmware-realtek* virtualbox-guest-dkms* virtualbox-guest-utils* virtualbox-guest-x11*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 19 to remove and 299 not upgraded.
Purg atmel-firmware [1.3-4]
Purg bluez-firmware [1.2-3]
Purg firmware-atheros [0.43]
Purg firmware-bnx2 [0.43]
Purg firmware-bnx2x [0.43]
Purg firmware-brcm80211 [0.43]
Purg firmware-intelwimax [0.43]
Purg firmware-ipw2x00 [0.43]
Purg firmware-ivtv [0.43]
Purg firmware-iwlwifi [0.43]
Purg firmware-libertas [0.43]
Purg firmware-linux [0.43]
Purg firmware-linux-nonfree [0.43]
Purg firmware-qlogic [0.43]
Purg firmware-ralink [0.43]
Purg firmware-realtek [0.43]
Purg virtualbox-guest-dkms [4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1]
Purg virtualbox-guest-x11 [4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1]
Purg virtualbox-guest-utils [4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1]
hd_scania@hardened ~ $ sudo apt purge -y atmel-firmware bluez-firmware firmware-atheros firmware-bnx2 firmware-bnx2x firmware-brcm80211 firmware-intelwimax firmware-ipw2x00 firmware-ivtv firmware-iwlwifi firmware-libertas firmware-linux firmware-linux-nonfree firmware-qlogic firmware-ralink firmware-realtek virtualbox-guest-dkms virtualbox-guest-utils virtualbox-guest-x11 && vrms
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
atmel-firmware* bluez-firmware* firmware-atheros* firmware-bnx2* firmware-bnx2x* firmware-brcm80211* firmware-intelwimax* firmware-ipw2x00* firmware-ivtv* firmware-iwlwifi*
firmware-libertas* firmware-linux* firmware-linux-nonfree* firmware-qlogic* firmware-ralink* firmware-realtek* virtualbox-guest-dkms* virtualbox-guest-utils* virtualbox-guest-x11*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 19 to remove and 299 not upgraded.
After this operation, 53.8 MB disk space will be freed.
(Reading database ... 235542 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing atmel-firmware (1.3-4) ...
dpkg: warning: while removing atmel-firmware, directory '/etc/pcmcia' not empty so not removed
Removing bluez-firmware (1.2-3) ...
Removing firmware-atheros (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-bnx2 (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-bnx2x (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-brcm80211 (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-intelwimax (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-ipw2x00 (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-ivtv (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-iwlwifi (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-libertas (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-linux (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-linux-nonfree (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-qlogic (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-ralink (0.43) ...
Removing firmware-realtek (0.43) ...
Removing virtualbox-guest-dkms (4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1) ...

—------ Uninstall Beginning —------
Module: virtualbox-guest
Version: 4.3.36
Kernel: 3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64)
—---------------------------------—

Status: Before uninstall, this module version was ACTIVE on this kernel.

vboxguest.ko:
- Uninstallation
- Deleting from: /lib/modules/3.16.0-4-amd64/
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
- Original module
- No original module was found for this module on this kernel.
- Use the dkms install command to reinstall any previous module version.

name at domain, [15.10.17 14:12]
[Forwarded from name at domain]
vboxsf.ko:
- Uninstallation
- Deleting from: /lib/modules/3.16.0-4-amd64/
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
- Original module
- No original module was found for this module on this kernel.
- Use the dkms install command to reinstall any previous module version.

vboxvideo.ko:
- Uninstallation
- Deleting from: /lib/modules/3.16.0-4-amd64/
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
- Original module
- No original module was found for this module on this kernel.
- Use the dkms install command to reinstall any previous module version.

depmod.....

DKMS: uninstall completed.

—----------------------------
Deleting module version: 4.3.36
completely from the DKMS tree.
—----------------------------
Done.
Removing virtualbox-guest-x11 (4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1) ...
Removing virtualbox-guest-utils (4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.6.1-2) ...
(Reading database ... 234674 files and directories currently installed.)
Purging configuration files for firmware-ivtv (0.43) ...
Purging configuration files for firmware-ipw2x00 (0.43) ...
Purging configuration files for virtualbox-guest-x11 (4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1) ...
Purging configuration files for virtualbox-guest-utils (4.3.36-dfsg-1+deb8u1) ...
No non-free or contrib packages installed on hardened.mint! rms would be proud.
hd_scania@hardened ~ $

lap4fsf
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2014

Hi gd_scania,

FYI, vrms follows Debian's definitions of free software rather than that of the GNU project.[1]

Richard M Stallman ** DOES NOT ** agree with many of the views expressed by the program's output. Free Software Foundation lists vrms among packages that don't respect its Free System Distribution Guidelines.[2]

In my earlier days with Debian GNU/Linux, I too had installed the package, thinking it was a tool to liberate my computer. Later I understood my mistake and promptly removed it from my installation.

DON'T think that simply removing those packages proposed by vrms will make your Linux Mint free/liberated like a magic!

References:
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-02/msg00027.html
[2] http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#vrms

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree (and, optionally, from contrib) which are currently installed.
The vrms package is however somewhat misleading since its name suggests it has to do with RMS while it in facts follows the Debian definition of free. For example things under the GFDL are considered non-free by Debian and free by RMS.

Said the FSF directories. But it just tells you to remove nonfree, how incomplete and misleading it is, esp between our wordings and its ones?
In an afterthought what are the only few differences between our GPL and their DFSG?

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 10/31/2014

>I never particularly liked Linux Mint

As much as I'd dislike having in it on a computer that I own (not gonna happen) even more so I like it installed on a mate's computer: it really is the only distro my computer semi-illiterate mates NEVER have any issue, give credit where it's due..

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

vrms doesn't work on Linux Mint. Mint uses its own packages which are jumbled in sections with no regard to whether they're libre or not, and those sections are what vrms depends on to work.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

Mint says open source is just a choice to them (esp in their installer) and they NEVER mention our term free software, so Mint also dsnt care are their packages free software or nonfreeware, the same problem found from Torvalds, which Torvalds DSNT care against nonfreeware, thus shipping nonfreeware drivers and firmware under his nonfree kernels, though copylefting his nonfree kernels under GPL, and I am sure to take denials against Torvalds, like our RMS.

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

"freeware" and "free software" are not the same thing. "Freeware" typically refers to software which is available at no charge.

I don't know what you mean by "take denials against Torvalds".

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

"Taking denials against one" is antonym against "taking credits for him".

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

That doesn't make sense to me either. What are you talking about?

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

You won't find a silver bullet that that magically removes all non-free packages and leaves you with a working system. Even if you used deblob-check to test all source code for blobs and found that everything flagged is either unnecessary or can be rebuilt with the blobs removed, you would still have to research the licenses, as they can't be automatically detected from the source code. I'm sure that there are other challenges I'm unaware of. If an arbitrary OS could be liberated in a day there would be a Trisquel release immediately after each Ubuntu release.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

Do you mean that, nonfreeware packages those aren’t blobs should be mostly ‘‘nonfree’’ due to their licenses suspectedly written to us? If so we should need to re-license these nonfreeware sources under GPL to be free software, right?

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

You can't relicense code you don't hold the copyright to.

What does "licenses suspectedly written to us" mean?

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

"Licenses which are suspectedly written".
Of course you cant relicense their binaries, but if they are the sources? Sources mean where you make a derivative, of course you are free to license you this work under GPL, unless this is prohibited against the original license.

onpon4
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2012

"Suspectedly" is not a word, so that doesn't help at all. What do you mean by "suspectedly written"?

> Of course you cant relicense their binaries, but if they are the sources?

No difference. It's still copyrighted. Copyright works on all works, not just compiled binaries.

> unless this is prohibited against the original license.

You don't understand how licenses work. Licenses grant you permission to do something. It's copyright which prohibits certain actions, and copyright is automatic.

gd_scania
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2017

I of course know how a free and copyleft license works, our GPL is notable one, you are licensed which you must fully protect freedom and must restrict nothing, must stand firm against every back-doors and every surveillances.
But I honestly dunno how free but permissive licenses (like BSD clauses) and nonfree licenses (like m$) work.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Online
Joined: 07/24/2010

There are many other free licenses besides the GPL (which suits software but not textures): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Using Trisquel or any other 100% free GNU/Linux distribution, you indeed do not need to worry about licenses (the developers of the distribution take care of that for us: thanks to them!) ... as long as you stick to what the default repository provides.

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Joined: 07/07/2017

I think that your confusion is with copyright and copyleft work and how licenses apply to software. You seem to be under the impression that the license applies to only binaries, but it applies to the source code. Having access to the source code does not allow you to use, modify, or distribute it under a different license. If that were that case the GPL would be useless, because someone could redistribute GPL-licensed software under a proprietary license. If you use, modify, or distribute proprietary software as if it were GPL-licensed, you will be breaking the law.

This might clarify some things: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Online
Joined: 07/24/2010

A license is only a text. It tells whoever received the work what she is permitted/forbidden to do with it. Without a license, the Berne convention applies. That terrible international agreement says that, by default, you are not allowed to do anything with the work you received, except using it... but that is not even clear in the case of software because that implies copying it to RAM and the Berne convention does not permit copies.