Hello Everyone,

I don't intend rant or anything, but I am a little surprised at something I came across today. This site:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

seems to indicate that the GNU.org people aren't very happy with the popular Linux distros. The "un-endorsed" distros look like the top ten from distro watch, while the ones they are willing to endorse are obscure distros I would bet most people have never heard of. Now, I understand that the inclusion of proprietary drivers for certain hardware (even though they are provided free by the vendors) "taints" a kernel. But, to make this statement on this site:

seems to indicate a pretty serious "rift" between the FSF and most of the popular Linux distros. I thought that this was Stallman's outfit, and if so, is there a rift going on?

Any comments?

Bob

This doesn't surprise me. From what I've seen, Richard Stallman is very quick to criticize just about anything that isn't 100% Free, according to his definition of it. And of course his foundation follows with the same attitude. People who zealously promote a single concept very often have little tolerance for anyone who doesn't share their passion.

In practice though, it's very hard for any big project to live up to that ideal. Especially when there are lots of people who depend on hardware and software for which free options just don't exist, or that don't measure up to their needs. So it seems natural to me that only obscure distributions will be able to maintain perfectly Free status; since they don't have a big user base it's easier to be strict about it (or conversely, they don't have a user base because they are so strict).

PS: Don't think I'm dissing Stallman here. I have a lot of respect for what he's accomplished, and mostly agree with his position about freedom in software. It's his passion for Free software (and hardware) that has made FOSS the important force in computing today, and the Linux we know and love wouldn't exist without him. But at the same time, having a need for Free options is not the same as all options needing to be free.

My views exactly...When I use a prop. graphics driver, I obtained it "free" (as in beer), even though the source code is not freely distributable, it was FREE with the blessing of the owner of the software. That site seems to intimate that the code they do not approve of in Linux was stolen.

Bob

Interestingly, OpenBSD failed to get his endorsement too, and that's despite the fact that they're just as anti-binary-blob and pro-openness as he his. Infact I'd say they're even more so as they're even trying to replace as much GPL software as possible with BSD licensed software because they believe the GPL isn't free enough (i.e. it contains restrictions of its own). Stallman's reason for not granting an endorsement?... "because OpenBSD's 'ports collection' contained some build-scripts/makefiles for 3rd party non-free software and that might encourage the user to install them."

They're not even part of the base project, it's just extra stuff people have made available as a convenience.

If you ask me, Stallman is a few beers (free or otherwise) short of a crate on this issue.

It's been this way for ages. The FSF (and Stallman) operate on the principle that software should be free (as in speech) and closed source. Most distros opt for convenience over this and so will include mp3 codecs and proprietary graphics drivers. All the FSF is doing is providing information for users and devs to say "if you want to follow our principles, stay away (or significantly modify) the following distros". They did, in fact, produce their own distro, GNewSense, which does follow the principles. No controversy here, simply information.

Yet Dynabolic IS endorsed. Now, I know this is a multi-media specific distro, and I have never used it. I cannot, however, believe that win32 codecs NEVER find their way into that distro.

Bob

You can make "non-free" any distro. IIRC, Dynebolic is a rpm based distro so it would be trivial to add in proprietary codecs and drivers. The FSF's point is that some distros are free out of the box and others aren't. They don't say not to use them (AFAIK), they just allow us to make an informed choice. While many of us may think that Stallman is too out there, it must be remembered that for many years he was a relatively lone voice, his ideas have made Linux possible as it is - if he was not being listened to, the GPL wouldn't exist in it's present form and Linux would remain a hobby distro for a very select few.

As this is philosophical, rather than technical, I have moved it to General.

Thank you,, XavierP. Nuff said on my part.

Bob

While I agree that RMS / FSF accomplished much to establish FOSS, often I think that RMS lost it somewhere along the lines and is now way over his head.

One can overdo things...

It does not. I'd say it explains that parts included in the Linux kernel are protected by a copyright. The copyright owner has exclusive rights to do with that code (ask a per-seat license fee for using the code, deny reverse enigneering it, restrict code access with an NDA, grant free-of-cost usage of it or even detract it) as he pleases. Sure it's convenient in that you get to utilise the stuff free-of-cost but basically it means trying to walk on quicksand: you can't modify it or improve it, just use it. No auditing of risks, no performance or feature enhancements, no security fixes, in essence no progress at all and no solid foundation for people to "give back" even if they would like to do so. To get an idea of what code this includes check out this post (BLAG, 2008). I'd be interested to hear those who see this as "just another RMS rant" explain their POV, and why it all doesn't matter, in objective terms...

Good point. I withdraw that comment with apologies.

Bob

What they should do is use it for the time being but replace it with a FLOSS alternative ASAP. I mean, if you have a device that will only work with a proprietary driver, and you need the device to work, then you will use the proprietary driver no matter what RMS says. However, you should know that it is proprietary, and usually crappy (the broadcom drivers mentioned in the blag), and should be replaced with FLOSS ASAP.

There are two problems. One is technical and the other is basically human nature.

The technical problem is that big companies have no incentive to release their device specifications in public so that Free Software/Open Source developers can write drivers for it. There is always a need to reverse engineer which is an extremely time-consuming and fault-ridden process.

On the other hand, any increase in the usage of binary-only drivers will actually slow down initiative to create free "equivalents" because it already just works out of the box with binary-only drivers. And keep in mind that writing device drivers is an extremely specialized field, there probably being only a few thousands of programmers in the whole world who have true expertise in this field.

I think it's important to note that the Linux community and the Free Software community are actually not on the same page on this issue and haven't been for a long time and the rift will only grow with Linux gaining more popularity mainstream and people will no longer bother with "freedom".

The GPL is only "not free enough" in some Orwellian doublespeak sense. The restrictions contained within the GPL are there to preserve freedom - the requirement that any software derived from GPL'd code is also free software.

The BSD license does not contain this condition (it is "non-copyleft"), and that is the FSF's main objection to it. This means that, although it is a free software license, there is no restriction on a commercial organisation taking the code, modifying it, then issuing the modified version in binary-only form - i.e. as non-free software.

As for the disagreements between the FSF and the "pragmatists", they are nothing new - they date back at least to the late nineties. Compare Eric S. Raymond's Goodbye "Free Software", Hello "Open Source" with Richard Stallman's Why "Open Source" Misses the Point of Free Software.

Most people, I guess, are somewehere in between.

I read a pretty interesting article somewhere (was it this one? http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70114093427179) that it's a big misconception that the BSD licensed code can be "re-licensed" in this way. You might take BSD code and put it in a proprietary project, but that doesn't mean the code itself gets re-licensed. It still remains BSD licensed, otherwise the whole point is lost.

To my mind, there is a big legal and logical loophole in a software license which allows itself to be nullified in a manner which makes it ineffective on applying its own rules.

P.S. I guess public domain is actually what allows total freedom.