Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: any Free BSD variant?

[Graziano Sorbaioli]

On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:33 +0200, Rubén Rodríguez Pérez wrote:

> 
> Is true that Debian is not as free as we'd like, but they are the closer
> we have, so I think we should take it easy with them, and try to help
> their community. There are plenty of crappy distros full of non-free
> stuff to criticize, and we always press harder on Debian.


Maybe people criticize debian because they make a lot of slogans and
publicity about freedom and then voted to include proprietary firmware
in the kernel and still have contrib and non-free repos (they are not
part of debian but guess what? they are there).

Ubuntu didn't make all that slogans and stuff. They include proprietary
sofftware by default and developed workarounds to promote the
installation of non free codecs and plugins.

So no surprise people don't blame ubuntu but do it with debian.



> > > Basing on debian is a first step. I am not a developer but the
> > > people who currently maintain gNewSense assured me that using debian
> > > as a base will make gnewsense easily to maintain and upgrade.
> > 
> > Fully agreed.
> 
> And another reason to keep working with them.


The situation is that, when it is possible, we collaborate with them.
But now we are talking about a different issue. We are talking about a
fully libre GNU distribution that should not weight on mozilla or debian
or ubuntu to make steps towards freedom.

That is a different topic.


> > > 3) Start to apply what Waver Doganov has just proposed: switching
> > > packages to the GNU alternative, one by one.
> > 
> > This was just one (albeit central) point of my plan, and it's not
> > something to be taken lightly.
> 
> I think that this is not a good idea. If a program is free, then it
> needs no replacement. Why should we replace, let's say. openssh -which
> has become an standard- with a new and unsupported GNU app? 
> There are lots of non-free software that needs a replacement, that's a
> much more urgent issue.


The problems with free software that is not gnu software are that often
developers don't care a lot about staying free.
For example the linux kernel decided to stay with an older version of
the gpl missing updated protection from freedom threats provided by the
gplv3. They also included proprietary firmware in the kernel despite the
free license.

Mozilla firefox is free software but it still points people to install
non free plugins and addons.


So you can see what is the difference between a gnu program and free non
gnu one.


-- 
Graziano Sorbaioli  |  http://sorbaioli.org

LibrePlanet Italia
http://libreplanet.org/index.php/LibrePlanetItalia