[Arm-netbook] Free distribution certification (was Re: eoma68-jz4775 x-ray pictures)

[Paul Boddie]

On Friday 29. April 2016 15.21.12 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
> > Since the alternatives that FSF recommend and bless are something like
> > Trisquel or gNewSense, which are based on Debian (or Ubuntu?),
> 
>  trisquel's based on ubuntu 8.04, and hasn't moved since.  gNewSense
> is debian, and they appear to have used debian, but went for a much
> more comprehensive "rebranding".  i'm interested in doing the minimum
> required amount of work here.

I think it's easy to go round in circles here when the FSF's own guidelines 
can instruct us and help explain why these separately-branded distributions 
exist. I hope the FSF doesn't mind me quoting from their document. ;-)

On branding and naming:

"We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree 
distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and 
Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light."

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#name-
confusion

So, if Debian is "nonfree" (let us not get into why or how they might reach 
that conclusion), then you won't get a Debian-branded certified distro.

----

On using non-free software:

"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."

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-
guidelines.html#documentation

So, again, the problem might be that since Debian documentation, such as the 
Debian Wiki which bears an increasing amount of responsibility for documenting 
the distribution, mentions how to install non-free software, this might count 
against Debian itself being regarded as a certified distro. They do mention 
this, though:

"For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree 
program would move it to the acceptable side of the line."

I guess this would require editorial practices not currently undertaken plus 
some discipline from people contributing to the documentation.

----

On providing non-free software:

"The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific 
recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license-
rules

This is the big obstacle. I suppose Trisquel and gNewSense get around this by 
hosting their own repositories and not hosting the non-free ones.

----

I can understand why the FSF wants to help users avoid the slippery slope of 
doing what random people on the Internet suggest, enabling various 
repositories for a quick fix when some proprietary service doesn't work, and 
then seeing those people fill their systems with dubious and potentially 
stability-damaging software, not to mention that it would be non-free and 
could have negative effects on their freedoms and, through network effects, on 
others' freedoms.

However, the tone of the guidance, although it isn't for end-users, isn't 
exactly positive nor does it give the impression of encouraging choice. Of 
course, words are not going to be wasted on saying that it is quite alright to 
encourage people to install Free Software from third-party repositories, but 
it's easy to come away with the idea that such a policy is restrictive.

What worries me the most is the burden that might be created. Although 
licensing requirements have been refined over the years so that it might be 
possible to avoid hosting everything yourself (thinking back to the whole 
Mepis Linux case where people were being sent to Ubuntu to get the sources), 
the provisioning required to host a complete distribution is not something to 
be taken lightly, even if the tooling probably isn't that bad for people with 
experience of it already.

The result might be that if anyone does try and pitch a certified distro, it 
ends up being a small one that doesn't offer the breadth of something like 
Debian because of the magnitude of the diversion from whatever goal the people 
doing it originally had. In this case, how much effort should be diverted away 
from getting the hardware and software done towards rebranding, repacking and 
hosting something that is essentially Debian?

I really think that the different parties should just get together and develop 
a reasonable understanding around these matters based on the substantial level 
of agreement they probably already have.

Paul