[Fsf-Debian] gap assessment

[kete at ninthfloor.org]

Osamu Aoki <osamu at debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Before discussing what action to take etc., let's make an gap analysis
> between FSF thought on FREE SYSTEM DISTRIBUTON and current Debian by
> going back to "Guidelines for Free System Distributions" published by
> FSF.
>   http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
>
> Let's check one by one for Debian system (this means "main" only)
>
>  * Complete Distros ---- Debian basically qualifies
>  * License Rules ------- Debian qualifies without question
>    FSF requires free license only for direct functional applications.
>    Debian requires free license for all.
>  * Nonfree Firmware ---- Debian qualifies without question
>    (Debian removed firmware blobs so nothing to complain here.)
>  * Non-functional Data - Debian qualifies since we take tougher stance
>    We do not even distribute verbatim-distribution license game data
>    which FSF is fine with.
>  * Trademarks ---------- Debian qualifies without question
>    Debian unbrand some software to avoid Trademark issues.
>  * Documentation ------- Debian has serious conflict
>    FSF allows some non-free documentations to be included but Debian does
>    not.  Exclusion of such non-free documentations is not explicitly
>    listed as problem.  There is fundamental conflict between FSF
>    restriction for instructions "for installing a nonfree program on the
>    system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so." vs. 
>    Debian Social Contract 4.
>  * Patents ------------- Debian qualifies without question
>    FSF is not asking to exclude software based on patents but also don't
>    object their exclusion.
>  * Commitment to Correct Mistakes --- Debian qualifies without question
>    We have been doing exhaustively check :-)  We just have tougher rules
>    than what FSF requires.
>  * Maintenance --------- Debian qualifies without question
>    We have security updates, BTS, etc.
>  * Name Confusion ------ Debian basically qualifies
>  * Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream --- Debian qualifies
>  * Please Teach Users about Free Software --- Not much advocacy
>    FSF requires advocacy which we may not be doing enough.  This is
>    mostly d-i and documentation issue.
>
> Possible remaining issues:
> 1) Exclusion of GFDL documentation of some essential software packages.
>    This may be weak objection point from FSF based on "Complete Distros".
> 2) Documentation requirement of "What would be unacceptable is for the
>    documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree
>    program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by
>    doing so." vs. Social Contract 4.  Dependency data
>    recommending/depending on non-free packages even as alternative may
>    also be considered unacceptable in the same logic.
> 3) Name Confusion with Debian archive having non-free software.
>    (Even if we move non-free archive to different domain, SC4 requires
>     us to take care their BTS.  So there will be some overwrap.)
> 4) Debian may not be doing enough advocacy for Free Software.
>
> As for 1 and 4, we need to hear from what FSF thinks on these.
>
> As for 2 and 3, these seems fundamental gap.  If FSF is uncomfortable
> with these situation, there is not much we can do.
>
> Osamu
>
> PS:  As far as package dependency, there are no non-free packages listed
> as the primary choice under depends nor recommends.  There are very
> limited cases which lists non-free packages as the second choice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list
> Fsf-collab-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
On the RMS Slashdot AMA, someone mentioned Debian's FSG "are nearly 
identical to the OSI Open Source Definition." 
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3278789&cid=42118383 Is 
this true, and if so, would that mean the DFSG are too diluted for the FSF?

Thanks,
Kete
On the Slashdot Ask RMS Anything, someone mentioned Debian's FSG "are
nearly identical to the OSI Open Source Definition."
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3278789&cid=42118383 Is
this true, and if so, would that mean the DFSG are too diluted for the
FSF?  Thanks, Kete


Thanks,
Kete