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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun 19, 2009, Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> wrote:

> Rubén Rodríguez Pérez wrote:
>> Is true that Debian is not as free as we'd like, but they are the
>> closer we have,

> I don't think so.  Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I read only two
> Fedora lists (mostly to watch Alexandre Oliva's heroic Sisyphean
> efforts,

:-)

> and for general information) -- but:

> - Fedora doesn't have any contrib/non-free repos ("contrib" in
>   Debian's meaning -- i.e. free software that depends on non-free)

In a sense, Debian's policy of separating Free from non-Free would be
more helpful than Fedora's bundling of Free and non-Free packages into a
single repository, but it would only be actually more helpful if it was
done for real (rather than, “oh, but we need a kernel in main and we
don't want to offer a Free kernel, so...”), and if the same criteria
were used (Debian regards as non-Free a lot of stuff that fits per the
GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines).  So in the end Fedora ends up
easier to clean up, yes.

>> > > Basing on debian is a first step.

>> > Fully agreed.

>> And another reason to keep working with them.

> Of course.  Cooperation is always a good thing.  I never meant to burn
> all bridges out there.

Cooperation isn't always a good thing.  It is when the goal is a good
one.  Cooperating with evil is no good ;-)

Which is not meant as implying that Debian does evil, BTW.  I'm only
disputing the sweeping generalization.

I do think cooperating with nearly-Free distros is a good thing, not so
much because they're easy for us to derive Free distros from, but also
because taking active part in their development keeps some decisions in
check.

Say, if people who cared deeply about software freedom we were to burn
all bridges and leave that room, decisions would be dominated by people
who did not care deeply about software freedom.  The end result would be
detrimental to everyone.

Whereas if we remain involved and influential in their decision-making
processes, even when we're defeated, we're probably at least drawing
attention to an important constituency, to the points that matter to us,
which is likely to bring the balance closer to our needs.

Just like the GNU/Linux naming issue, maintaining Linux libre and
getting popular nearly-Free distros to take the final steps to become
Free are issues that we must not perceive and act on as if they were
battles or wars, but rather as the possibly never-ending educational
campaigns that they are.

As painful as taking a part in these campaigns are, I believe we can
make more of a difference addressing communities that aren't fully
aligned with our goals, trying to enlighten them, than preaching to our
own choir, so to speak.

Having at least one fully Free reference distro is essential, but
ultimately the goal of the Free Software Movement is not to develop one
Free distro, it's for *all* software users to be Free.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer