Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: Freedom issues with non-free firmware in external files

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Aug 21, 2009, Daniel Olivera <address@hidden> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva escribió:
>> I hope there's no dispute that drivers are software, and that, per the
>> definition, software is information for practical use.

> What definition?

The one in the Free System Distribution Guidelines.

> we need make a "line" according to our objectives

We have a line, but it moves from time to time.

Years ago, it may have been as simple as what you describe: if it's Free
Software, it's ok.  I'm pretty sure the GNU philosophy wasn't limited to
this back when UTUTO started, but that doesn't matter.

Nowadays, the requirements are more stringent: software must not induce
or encourage users to install non-Free Software.

Heck, RMS has recently requested that several distros remove
ndiswrapper, even though it is Free Software, and it doesn't request any
non-Free Software.

The way it encourages users to install non-Free Software is by carrying
a message from the developers of the distro to the user, a message that
goes like: “I think it is so important for you to install non-Free
drivers that use the NDIS API that I maintain this otherwise-useless
program to my distro”.

If any useful NDIS driver existed that was Free Software, that would be
enough of a reason to offer ndiswrapper.  But as it stands today,
ndiswrapper doesn't belong in distros that share the values of the Free
Software Movement.  We understand that any non-Free Software is an
aggression against society, and that the unethical deprivation of
freedoms is harmful to the user.  Any software that requires or suggests
the acceptance of such an aggression is not software we should promote
or endorse.

So, even if you reject the argument that some Linux drivers ask for
non-Free Software, or minimize the effects of printing error messages
out of failure to load the requested pieces of firmware, it still holds
that these drivers are only useful if the user installs non-Free
Software.  So the message you send when you fight for their inclusion
is: “I think it is so important for you to install non-Free firmware
that I maintain these otherwise-useless drivers in my distro”.

That you modify their error messages, so as to pass some criterion,
rather than deleting or disabling them, makes the message even worse,
for it shows how important it is to you.

So please, pretty please, don't send this message to your users.

There's no objection to the possibility that users install and use
non-Free firmware along with the non-Free drivers that request them.
But a FSD should not ship those drivers any more than it should ship the
corresponding non-Free firmware.


> Tivolization is another process.

I know, I was merely checking all the ways I'm aware of that could
render Software non-Free, against the FSDG and Diego's claim about it.
I can't find support for Diego's claim in any of them.  Maybe we should
both let him answer what he was thinking of, rather than speculating?

-- 
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