1) Thank you for the tips regarding the Debian community. I am new so please excuse any faux pas I make. I will surely preface any bug reports with what you mentioned.
2) I can't speak on behalf of the FSF as I am an associate member (I contribute financially) but am not an employee or spokesman so I can't comment for them. I personally don't think that change would be sufficient but that is just my personal opinion. What you mention is actually the subject of discussion of this mailing list (https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss). We are currently waiting on John Sullivan to make an official statement. 3) (Small note - offtopic). We don't consider apt to be non-free. If you are referring to this (http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#apt). The issue isn't if the software is free or not it is that a file shows users how to enable non-free repos which doesn't meet endorsement criteria for a free system. Telling a user how to install non-free software does not make the program itself non-free. Simple modification (removal of instructions to use non-free repos) of this file would allow it to fall within endorsement criteria 4) As far as the other things you mentioned. The artistic (1.0) license is a difference between debian and GNU project. GNU project considers it to be non-free while debian doesn't. The opposite thing is true with the documentation licenses. GFDL is considered free by the GNU project while non-free by Debian. So if Debian decides to exclude that documentation that is NOT a problem. That is being discussed on the fsf-collab mailing list I linked in section (2). As far as the problem with mono, my understanding is that is a patent problem not a freedom issue. That topic is covered in the free system guidelines link I linked previously. Basically a distro can include them or they can exclude them, it is up to the distro. Same thing with the documentation licenses. Lastly, I am unaware of the issue you raise with LibreOffice so I can't really comment. 4) I will mark this bug as wishlist as you instructed. On 09/05/2012 10:32 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:24:30AM -0700, Grant H. wrote: >> Sorry, also to just clarify the bug and what the issue is. > > Thanks. maybe I should have read link in detail so it is partially my > fault too. Excuse me. > > I think we need to be clear what stage of action is going on and what > actions are expected in each communication. Let me go back a bit and > propose a bit slower steps. > >> If Zak wants to get the Debian project endorsed by the GNU project[1] >> as of now Debian would have to abide by the Guidelines for Free System >> Distributions [2]. This particular package is one such bug that would >> threaten that endorsement because in the case of documentation: >> >> "All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released >> under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not >> to recommend nonfree software." >> >> So, to clarify. This is not a bug/wishlist about the package violating >> any Debian policy. It is a bug/wishlist against Stefano's idea to get >> Debian endorsed by the GNU project. The summary of such bugs are: >> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines > > I see. Then all these bugs should be wishlist feature bug to start with. > >> [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html >> [2]https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html > > I for one wishes to have GNU endorsement but before discussing it, we > need to assess gaps between Debian and GNU. For future filing, please > consider to use something like the following to reduce friction > and use our unstable archive for bug tracking. > >> -------------------- >> This wishlist bug report filed is to elucidate existing sticking points >> in Debian which block Debian to be qualified as "Free System Distributions" >> by FSF. >> >> I am filing this bug report from the POV of FSF to answer the call by >> Stefano Zacchiroli for a "free-ness assessment" [1]. It is up to the >> package maintainer and Debian on how to proceed. >> >> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html >> >> Package: >> debian-reference (2.48) >> >> Problem type: >> Suggests/instructs installing proprietary software >> >> Recommended Fix: >> Remove program/package or modify to not recommend proprietary >> software >> >> Problem: In 9.7.6. "Non-free hardware drivers" states as follows: >> ============================== >> Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as >> a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external >> drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system. >> >> Tip >> Check available firmware packages with "aptitude search ^firmware" while >> enabling the non-free repository. >> >> Tip >> The NDISwrapper can use Windows XP network drivers natively on Linux. >> Check "aptitude search ^ndis". >> ============================== > > As I see this problem, this is one of the issue for "separation". > > Does FSF consider to change above text to the following satisfactory? > >> ============================== >> Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as >> a part of the pure Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external >> drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system >> while contaminating your Free System (FSF does not endorse such >> action.) >> >> Tip >> Check available firmware packages with "aptitude search ^firmware" while >> enabling the non-free repository which is not part of official Debian >> Distribution. (FSF does not endorse use of non-free packages.) >> >> Tip >> The NDISwrapper can use Windows XP network drivers natively on Linux. >> Check "aptitude search ^ndis". Use of such driver makes your system >> non-free. >> (FSF does not endorse such action.) >> ============================== > > I thought these are redundant since I mention these facts elsewhere. But > repeating get FSF approval, I am OK for changing while keeping facts as > is. > > But if you think issue still exist since this still give IDEA or > TEMPTATION to use such package for non-FSF purist, I will not do this > change nor hide existence of non-free packages. (Seeing you listed APT > as non-free makes me worry.) > > I wonder why GNU distribute many packages supporting and encouraging the > use of NON FREE Operating system such as Windows and proprietary Unix if > FSF takes such an hard line position. At least, we have no more reason > to promote use of commercial UNIX. (I for one think current support is > OK, though. My problem is inconsistent stance.) Fairly good portion of > code in autoconf.automake is support for old commercial UNIX which I see > no reason to give OS exception rationale. > > I will appreciate to lower bar for qualifying endorsement which is par > with FSF's stance on handling of commercial UNIX. > > Oh wait, as I see bug list: > http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines > (This list is somewhat confusing since these may not be packaged for > Debian or Debian may have newer package.) > > But this lists package with artistic license. OMG. Well I know > Artistic license was problematic for but ... Does Libreoffice in > unstable/testing still as problematic as killer factor? > > I wonder if FSF takes such a hard stance on each small problem, why FSF > is not listing MONO related packages such as tomboy banshee ... which > FSF hates with reason as I understand. > > I also wonder having GFDLed gcc documentation etc. with invariant > section in non-free OK for FSF. This non-free is not the part of > official Debian distribution. > > Osamu > > -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
