On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:58 PM Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Discussion can be had about the FSF criteria, of course, but since Luke is actually seeking such endorsement, the only thing that might be helpful for him is to indicate to him that various FSF concerns are now addressed in the more mainstream distributions, such as there not being random firmware binaries in kernel packages, and so on.
the RYF Criteria are extremely specific: it's not enough to have a non-free section that's "disabled", it must be *not possible* for an average end-user to *accidentally* end up installing non-free software by complete accident such as "running a GUI and arbitrarily clicking random buttons".
the absolute worst-case is where an inexperienced end-user, running e.g. synaptics, goes "i have no idea what this does, i'm just gonna click it" and it happens to enable the "non-free" section, happens to silently and happily perform an apt-get update, and wow, suddenly there's binary firmware available... all WITHOUT warning the user of the consequences.
the "convenience" scripts that download mstruetypefonts.
the "convenience" script that gets the latest adobe flash player.
the broadcom wifi firmware extractor scripts
my feeling is, here, that if aptitude, apt, synaptics and other apt front-ends added a simple warning dialog "hello you are adding the non-free section, this can have severe consequences as the source is not available for review", that would quite likely eliminate one of the FSF's major concerns.
l.