[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Guix and FSDG

From: Freemor
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Guix and FSDG
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:38:32 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:05:50AM +0100, Jean Louis wrote:
> Liberation scripts shall be free software, yet those should be
> published as special package for distribution maintainers or
> duplicators, within the distribution itself.
> For users, users should not need to run liberation scripts when
> getting distribution. They shall get the full free software without
> the process of liberation.
> In general, if distribution is called distribution, its method of
> pulling software should not pull anything non-free to users
> computers. Otherwise it is not distribution, per se. It is system of
> preparing software on the computer, but is not distribution.

I'd agree with all of the above

> Distribution should have capacity to be duplicated, for example by
> duplicating the DVD and giving the DVD to other person. It should have
> capacity to be copied so that it can be shared. If any scripts are
> involved there to prepare packages, it is not distribution, and it
> impairs the capacity to share software, which is the point of
> "distributing".

So by this are you saying so long as a system like Parabola provides only 
free binaries (what is pulled to the users computer), and provides the 
liberation scripts as special separate things (Advanced users only). Then
there is no need for us to provide the liberated source? As "Users" wouldn't
require that to duplicate, run or share the system. And advanced persons 
could pull the separate scripts and study them if they wished to study or

> Look at the GNU Linux-libre kernel, it has been deblobbed, liberation
> scripts exists, but it is distributed as free software. Users can get
> only free software.
> Distribution shall offer final product, free software, and not tools
> to make the final product. That is unfinished work if users would ever
> need to run liberation scripts to get to the free software. While
> intention may not be to stear users to non-free software, that is
> exactly where users are pointed to, to see that non-free software
> exists, thus such scripts shall be run only by maintainers and not by
> users.

This last paragraph I have issues with. Tho I totally agree that a user 
shouldn't have to run the liberation script  to create a working system if
that system is marking itself as a Distribution. I am completely against 
ideas like "shall be run only by maintainers". This smacks of the elitism 
putting "Maintainers" in a more privileged position than "users". This kind 
of split has always rubbed me the wrong way. IMHO this lead to a negative 
cultural paradigm in which one class of people hold power and status and
another is seen as less than and usually end up being treated that way.

As for "to see that non-free software exists". To me this is a rather odd
stance. We are in a world in which the defacto default is non-free software.
To try and act like this does not exist is close to nonsensical. This idea
that the user must at all cost be protected from that knowledge goes back
to my paragraph above and the treatment of "users" as "less than". 

Please understand that I am dead against things like instructing a user on how
to install a non-free thing. Or having a browser that by default shows
thousands of non-free plug-ins as options. Or having a free piece of software
that pulls in tons on non-free stuff on first run. Basically anything that
would induce, aid or cause a person to mistakenly or intentionally run non-free
stuff. Completely off the table. 

But to try to pretend that linux-libre doesn't come from a very problematic 
Linux, to try and hide that association is misguided. 

A liberation script does not proclaim "hey, go get this instead" but rather
"This thing will harm your freedom. Here is how you can protect yourself.".

Arming people with the tools and knowledge of how to use them to protect
their freedom (and by extension the freedom of others ) is far better than 
trying to hide the existence of non-free things.

We should try educate people to protect themselves and others. Not hide that
there is a need to do so. 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]