Hello world
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Or simply evaluate their repositories separately against FSDG, calculate their full distro status by logically AND'ing all their repositories (Free:TRUE, Nonfree:FALSE) and list it all in each distribution's explanation sub-paragraph. If there are other variables (ATM I can't think of one) to be taken into consideration, then also include them in the logical AND function.
Maybe it would make better sense to bring this up in Debian community.
A task-force within Debian, composed of libre software enthusiasts and dedicated to libre OS idea, can roll out a sub-Debian distribution as "Debian Libre". Most of its members, I presume, would also be taking roles in Debian, and the Debian-Libre project would be their side work.
It may be regarded as a sub-distribution, or it may be regarded as a separate distribution on its own. If it is to be a sub-distribution, then there would be one more repository to be added to Debian by this team: the "libre" repository (in addition to main, contrib, and non-free)
Details doesn't matter much as long as the goal is achieved. Such a team functioning within Debian community would have better chances of co-operating with Debian as well.
Yes, a "Debian Libre" distribution sounds sensible. Why didn't I think of this before?
The thing is, I have no connections within Debian community (my last direct interaction with them was perhaps 10 years ago) and I would expect some inertial resistance in Debian community against external ideas.
If this community is stablished, care must me taken such that this
subproject doesn't end up referencing support resources from the parent
project, as one must remember that the GNU FSDG also serves to evaluate
the behavior of the cummunity and their support resources.
Interesting idea. Wouldn't that be quite similar to what Parabola does to Arch with the libre repo and the your-freedom package [1]?
Honestly I have no idea about Arch Linux and Parabola - never used a pacman based distro. If their "main-equivalent" repository (i.e. the base/default system) is also FSF cleared, which I doubt, and if Parabola is using it as-is, then Parabola could be analogous to Debian Libre. Otherwise, Debian Libre would be starting the race like 10 laps ahead against Parabola.
So far as I know, only Debian base system (main) has got an exceptional clearance from FSF, as the link Alberto has posted says "Unlike other common GNU/Linux distributions, installing official Debian by default means installing only free software."
So, while Parabola presumably struggles to clean up many packages in Arch base system (and repeats it in every release), Debian Libre would be getting a free ride on "main" and thus be able to focus all its energy on where it really matters - liberating non-free hw and sw.
Currently there's no such a "free rider" approach in libre OS world so far as I'm aware of. Debian Libre might be a breakthrough in this regard. I may be missing something obvious, though, as I'm not very familiar with all the libre OS projects out there.
If **their** "main-equivalent" repository (i.e. the base/default system) is also FSF cleared, which I doubt,...
This begs a clarification. With "their" I meant Arch, and not Parabola.
"Yes, a "Debian Libre" distribution sounds sensible. Why didn't I think of this before?"
Round and Round we go.
You were told this already, its called gNewSense, it is Debian Libre or a Liberated Debian. Contact them via iirc and their mailing list and have fun with it. The lead dev. is Sam and he is very approachable.
If only gNewSense were to adopt the free-rider approach I've been talking about, which is my main point, then they could be regarded as "Debian Libre" as well. Unfortunately gNewSense seems to be going the hard way too. While they get close, with the aim of "the difference with Debian should be kept minimal", they still seem to be modifying Debian/main -an extra undertaking- which is not strictly required for FSF endorsement.
http://www.gnewsense.org/VerificationTeam
http://www.gnewsense.org/Documentation/3/DifferencesWithDebian
The critical question here is whether a deb based libre distro (be it Trisquel, gNewSense, so called "Debian Libre" or whatever) is using the original Debian/main repository "as-is" (with exceptions) or not. Debian community is more likely to adopt such a strategy, but anyone can do it as well. Currently no one does it AFAIK.
A distro cannot have GNU FSDG status if its name makes it easy to confuse it with a non-FSDG distro.
Which reminds me of GNU having no OS distribution of their own (so far as I know).
Seriously, wouldn't it be nice if GNU rolled out such a libre distro of its own? Built on top unmodified Debian/main, having a free ride on it and adding libre solutions on top of that, might be a good candidate for GNU. As a side effect it would bolster GNU-Debian relationship, where Debian is already dedicated to FOSS philosophy.
Probably not very much GNU resources would be needed, as a separate/dedicated team would hopefully be able to roll by themselves. It would be just fine if GNU contributed its presence (name) and endorsement. GNU name alone might attract people in droves. Ofcourse, if GNU got actually involved in it, the better.
For example, GNUS or GNUOS ?
One drawback might be that GNU would have no direct control over Debian/main repository. What if Debian in the future somehow strays off its dedication to FOSS and consequently Debian/main loses its endorsement by FSF? (an extremely unlikely event)
"Which reminds me of GNU having no OS distribution of their own (so far as I know). Seriously, wouldn't it be nice if GNU rolled out such a libre distro of its own"
They've already got one, distributed directly from gnu.org. Go download it here: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/download/
Guix is also the official package manager for the GNU Operating System: https://www.gnu.org/software/ lists all official GNU packages. And you can use it to make a complete bootable system: Just install the right packages.
Stallman doesn't want to credit it as being the "official" GNU Operating System, though, but if you look at things -- it's developed by GNU Hackers, using GNU Project infrastructure and developed under the umbrella of the GNU Project and plus you can use either Linux-libre or HURD kernels -- it's the closest you're going to come, despite what Stallman doesn't want to do. It's the GNU Operating System in every way, except in name.
"Built on top unmodified Debian/main"
A project to make an operating system needs to start by first going to someone else and use theirs? Wait, what? The GNU Project is the one that started it all, and they've got the bootloader, compiler, kernel (Linux-libre is also an official GNU package), desktop environment (GNOME) and now package manager (named Guix) to pull it all together into a cohesive system. The GNU Project doesn't need anything from Debian.
[QUOTE]"A project to make an operating system needs to start by first going to someone else and use theirs? Wait, what?"[/QUOTE]
:)
I am a bit more on the pragmatical side of it. More specifically I happen to be against duplication of effort. Afterall, apt or guix or GNU projects are all GPL. If there is no unacceptable issues with Debian/main then why reinvent the wheel? There is an immense manpower already being invested in Debian project. Why redo the already done? That was my approach more or less.
As for the GNU using someone else's product *to build a unique solution on*, I see your point. I was just thinking aloud of multiple alternative scenarios that come to my mind.
"If there is no unacceptable issues with Debian/main then why reinvent the wheel?"
Well, there needs a base. Debian couldn't have existed without the GNU Project to make the wheel back in 1983 in the first place. It's called Debian GNU/Linux for a reason. :) It's a distribution of the GNU Operating System, but it is not the GNU Operating System.
"There is an immense manpower already being invested in Debian project."
The same can be said of the GNU Project. It's going strong for 33 years. A lot of work has been invested.
"I am a bit more on the pragmatical side of it. More specifically I happen to be against duplication of effort."
The GNU Project predates Debian, so if there is any duplication it's Debian is duplicating the effort to make a system not the other way around. :)
Although I don't suppose Debian actually "makes" them system, at least not in the context I am talking. Because they don't actually *make* the things like the compiler and whatnot themselves. That's what the GNU Project does. Again, it's called Debian GNU/Linux for a reason. :)
If I sounded so, I didn't actually mean to race them against each other. They are all parts of the same ecology of course. GNU makes the base, while Debian getting them all and putting together to form a yet another product built on GNU products. Still, there is a niche ("Debian Libre") which is not currently filled by Debian or anybody else for that matter. Just like Debian gets GNU products as input, GNU can also get Debian products as input to fill that gap. They all belong to the same ecology afterall.
It can be pointed out that there are already several projects out there to fill that niche, but my main interest is in a "free-rider" one, which I have previously discussed in detail.
I am a translator!
>A task-force within Debian, composed of libre software enthusiasts and dedicated to libre OS idea, can roll out a sub-Debian distribution as "Debian Libre".
^^
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires