Software Freeness
I usually use Virtualbox for testing operating systems, but I'm not sure about it's freeness. I'm thinking maybe it's like with Mozilla, and the software is free, but proprietary artwork takes away freeness. If this is the case, is there an unbranded version? Ditto for Thunderbird.
I think we should use this as a thread for any other programs people aren't sure of as well.
Again (I do not know how many times this has be explained on this forum): Firefox's freedom issue is that it recommends the use of non-free software. Then, Mozilla uses the trademark law to help the user identify their products (the whole objective of the trademark law): you cannot call your application Firefox or Thunderbird nor uses their logos. This does not raise freedom issues (you can still exercise the four freedoms on Mozilla's software) but means that a modified Firefox (e.g., that does not recommend any non-free software) cannot be called Firefox not use the Firefox logo.
Regarding Virtualbox, it is in Trisquel's repository, it must be free as in freedom. That is the good thing about Trisquel: you can trust its developers and the FSF recommending it.
Even if it is in Trisquel repositories it doesn't ensure that is free: errors can happen also for Trisquel developers (as they say in the documentation pages). I think that this type of topics should be encouraged and not inhibited.
I agree with fabio. We have to be constantly vigilant. There was an incident a while ago that rendered a couple versions of GNU emacs non-free. I believe it was something like the source code wasn't provided for some select versions or something I don't remember.
Constant questioning and auditing is how we protect ourselves.
I agree... but should it really be encourage to ask about the freeness of any software in the repository without having any reason to doubt about it?
I wouldn't say there was no reason. I think it was a misunderstanding which you clarified very well with your first post.
I agree with fabio. We have to be constantly vigilant. There was an
incident a while ago that rendered a couple versions of GNU emacs non-free.
I believe it was something like the source code wasn't provided for some
select versions or something I don't remember.
Constant questioning and auditing is how we protect ourselves.
> Then, Mozilla uses the trademark law to help the
> user identify their products (the whole objective of the trademark
> law): you cannot call your application Firefox or Thunderbird nor uses
> their logos. This does not raise freedom issues (you can still
> exercise the four freedoms on Mozilla's software) but means that a
> modified Firefox (e.g., that does not recommend any non-free software)
> cannot be called Firefox not use the Firefox logo.
https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html prohibits
selling these programs with their branding. FSF considers requiring
renaming programs when distributing modifications to not be a problem,
since modifications already require changes to the programs, but it is
too much work when distributing unmodified software (see
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
for reference).
I am a translator!
Quote from virtualbox.org:
VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for enterprise as well as home use. Not only is VirtualBox an extremely feature rich, high performance product for enterprise customers, it is also the only professional solution that is freely available as Open Source Software under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. See "About VirtualBox" for an introduction.
I think it's quite free then ;-)
If that is the case, it is better to grab VirtualBox from https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads because it will always be up to date and the Trisquel team wouldn't have to manually insert and/or monitor its files in the Trisquel repos.
From one version to the next one, some freedom issues may arise (actually it may even already be the case and some proprietary components are removed). Furthermore I doubt the packages available from the Web site have the technical quality of those made by Debian and Ubuntu developers.
So you are basically saying that a bunch of independent community members that rely on source code given to them have more technical knowledge and ability to put out a more polished product than the actual company that made it and supplies the source code?
I don't know if I am shooting myself in the foot with that comment or saying no to the RMS Kool-Aid and being a voice of reason because of it.
I am only talking about the packaging work (from the source code to the DEB package), which is one of the main work of the distributions. This is far from being easy to package a large piece of software.
> So you are basically saying that a bunch of independent community
> members that rely on source code given to them have more technical
> knowledge and ability to put out a more polished product than the
> actual company that made it and supplies the source code?
Different technical knowledge is needed to make good distro packages.
It's common for upstream projects to write technically bad scripts for
building and installing their packages and to ignore many issues
important for distros (e.g. using other libraries by requiring other
packages, not by bundling a version of them in the same package, thus
leading to bigger packages and more security problems). Distros like
Debian make also useful technical improvements to packages, which
wouldn't be quickly merged upstream.
You should keep in mind that, if he isn't subscribed to the mailing list,
he won't receive your reply.
So you are basically saying that a bunch of independent community members
that rely on source code given to them have more technical knowledge and
ability to put out a more polished product than the actual company that made
it and supplies the source code?
I don't know if I am shooting myself in the foot with that comment or saying
no to the RMS Kool-Aid and being a voice of reason because of it.
From one version to the next one, some freedom issues may arise (actually it
may even already be the case and some proprietary components are removed).
Furthermore I doubt the packages available from the Web site have the
technical quality of those made by Debian and Ubuntu developers.
If that is the case, it is better to grab VirtualBox from
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads because it will always be up
to date and the Trisquel team wouldn't have to manually insert and/or
monitor.
I am a member!
A distinction must also be made between "non-free software" and "non-FSDG software."
The "Free Software Definition" is how we determine if a piece of software is free or not. This definition is at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and is comprised of the four freedoms: the freedom to run, study, modify, and share software. If you can do all four of these, without restriction (save for the possible "copyleft" condition that you let people who receive copies from you have the same four freedoms - but no other restrictions), it is free. If you cannot, it is not free. What the software recommends, works with, or depends on has no bearing on this definition. The Free Software Definition applies to a single piece of software. Under this definition, Mozilla Firefox is free because you can do all these things.
The "Free Software Distribution Guidelines" (FSDG) are the criteria that FSF uses when deciding which distros they endorse. These guidelines are here: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. The FSDG is an extension of the free software definition that takes into account how the software interacts with other packages on the system. Non-free software is obviously non-FSDG too, but FSDG also requires that software not recommend, work with, or depend too much on non-free software. If a piece of non-free software is essential to the functionality of this software, it is not FSDG, even though it may be free. The FSDG are criteria for distros, not individual packages, and not users. So we, as users, are not obliged to follow FSDG, even if we want to keep a fully free system.
This is the LibrePlanet list of packages which present issues for FSDG distros: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines I feel like I need to keep saying this, but inclusion on this list doesn't imply that the software in question is not free. Some of those are non-free, others have non-free bits, others depend on non-free data or libraries, others recommend or mention non-free programs (even a mention of the name of a non-free program is enough to get it on this list, apparently), and still others have no use except in conjunction with non-free programs. Trisquel would indirectly be promoting non-free software if it included any of these packages (as they are; much of this software is actually in the repos, but with the necessary modifications or removals), therefore including such software conflicts with Trisquel's mission of promoting the software freedom movement; but you can use these packages (assuming they are free as defined by the free software definition) and your system stays free unless you install a non-free addition.
Your link is broken due to this forum software, but all is not lost bro:
LibrePlanet list of packages which present issues for FSDG distros:
https://bit.ly/fXxRep
Gah double post that I cannot delete.
I usually use Virtualbox for testing operating systems, but I'm not sure
about it's freeness. I'm thinking maybe it's like with Mozilla, and the
software is free, but proprietary artwork takes away freeness. If this is the
case, is there an unbranded version? Ditto for Thunderbird.
I think we should use this as a thread for any other programs people aren't
sure of as well.
Again (I do not know how many times this has be explained on this forum):
Firefox's freedom issue is that it recommends the use of non-free software.
Then, Mozilla uses the trademark law to help the user identify their products
(the whole objective of the trademark law): you cannot call your application
Firefox or Thunderbird nor uses their logos. This does not raise freedom
issues (you can still exercise the four freedoms on Mozilla's software) but
means that a modified Firefox (e.g., that does not recommend any non-free
software) cannot be called Firefox not use the Firefox logo.
Regarding Virtualbox, it is in Trisquel's repository, it must be free as in
freedom. That is the good thing about Trisquel: you can trust its developers
and the FSF recommending it.
I am a translator!
Quote from virtualbox.org:
VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for
enterprise as well as home use. Not only is VirtualBox an extremely feature
rich, high performance product for enterprise customers, it is also the only
professional solution that is freely available as Open Source Software under
the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. See "About
VirtualBox" for an introduction.
I think it's quite free then ;-)
I am a member!
A distinction must also be made between "non-free software" and "non-FSDG
software."
The "Free Software Definition" is how we determine if a piece of software is
free or not. This definition is at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
and is comprised of the four freedoms: the freedom to run, study, modify, and
share software. If you can do all four of these, without restriction (save
for the possible "copyleft" condition that you let people who receive copies
from you have the same four freedoms - but no other restrictions), it is
free. If you cannot, it is not free. What the software recommends, works
with, or depends on has no bearing on this definition. The Free Software
Definition applies to a single piece of software. Under this definition,
Mozilla Firefox is free because you can do all these things.
The "Free Software Distribution Guidelines" (FSDG) are the criteria that FSF
uses when deciding which distros they endorse. These guidelines are here:
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html. The FSDG
is an extension of the free software definition that takes into account how
the software interacts with other packages on the system. Non-free software
is obviously non-FSDG too, but FSDG also requires that software not
recommend, work with, or depend too much on non-free software. If a piece of
non-free software is essential to the functionality of this software, it is
not FSDG, even though it may be free. The FSDG are criteria for distros, not
individual packages, and not users. So we, as users, are not obliged to
follow FSDG, even if we want to keep a fully free system.
This is the LibrePlanet list of packages which present issues for FSDG
distros:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines
I feel like I need to keep saying this, but inclusion on this list doesn't
imply that the software in question is not free. Some of those are non-free,
others have non-free bits, others depend on non-free data or libraries,
others recommend or mention non-free programs (even a mention of the name of
a non-free program is enough to get it on this list, apparently), and still
others have no use except in conjunction with non-free programs. Because
Trisquel would indirectly be promoting non-free software if it included any
of these packages, as they were, it conflicts with the mission of Trisquel;
but you can use these packages (assuming they are free as defined by the free
software definition) and your system stays free unless you install a non-free
addition.