[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Guix and FSDG
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:36:33 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

* Freemor <address@hidden> [2019-11-27 14:51]:
> > 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
> change.

You mentioned the source code, so those liberation scripts are also
against the GPL in the sense that user cannot get the actual source
code for the modified software. But would have to run liberation
script to get the modified software. That is wrong.

If you provide binary that is modified you have to provide source code
for the binary..

> > 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".

I have already said that liberation scripts shall be provided in a
separate package in the same system, to offer users possibility to
create the distribution themselves.

Liberating software is something that maintainers need to do, but not
give to users to run it, unless they are making the distribution.

> 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".

Proprietary software shall not be delivered to users, as simple as
that. We work on distribution of free software. Of course we want to
protect users of proprietary software.

If there are liberation scripts, such shall be used to prepare the
liberated source code. Only liberated source code shall be delivered
to user, and such source code shall exist as final product for any
user who received modified, liberated binary, so that user can easily
download liberated source code, without to run any liberation scripts.

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

Linux-libre kernel provides liberated source code. See: where it
says: * releases: source tarballs tracking upstream releases, from
which we removed blobs and code that induces users to install non-Free

So they provide liberated source code. It is clear they liberated it
from proprietary software.

Use their example, that is example how to distribute free
software. They provide final product to user.

They do not provide liberation script that is to ask user to download
non-free software. They do not distribute non-free software.

It cannot be simpler to understand that non-free software shall not be
distributed. Whoever invented liberation scripts was too lazy to
finalize the product or did not have resources enough. It is not way
to distribute software and claim it is free, when it is non-free.


reply via email to

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