[Freedom-misc] I think the Raptor machines run Trisquel
mason at masonhock.com
mason at masonhock.com
Sat Sep 15 23:08:28 CEST 2018
> On another post it was claimed debian main holds software
> which you may not use, share, modify and redistribute.
I think you are referring to the discussion that began here, in which
Calmstorm said that Pocket should be disabled in order to have a
freedom-respecting system. He was right. Pocket depends on proprietary
server-side software. However, this does not violate the DFSG, because Debian
is not directly distributing the non-free software, only the free client
software that talks to the proprietary sever software. This is also why
recommending non-free addons and including snap does not violate the DFSG.
These are good examples of how the DFSG are not good enough to protect the
freedom of all users. Still, the DFSG are better than the guidelines most
distros use, and for a user who cares about freedom and is knowledgeable
enough to avoid things like non-free addons and snap it is possible to use
> Sound strange. I would think getting the required software
> from debian would be the most efficient solution?
Maybe it would be, if Debian had the same software. It doesn't. Ubuntu has
more and newer free software than Debian, so it is better for Trisquel to be
based on Ubuntu.
> Is it not the non free firmware and
> software in ubuntu which depends on non free software?
Excluding Ubuntu's multiverse and restricted repositories is just as easy as
it would be to exclude Debian's non-free and contrib repositories. What Magic
was asking you is if Ubuntu makes *changes* to packages that Trisquel has to
revert. I'm not aware of any. Browsing the package helpers, it looks like
most changes are changing Ubuntu branding to Trisquel branding (this would
still be necessary with Debian branding) and removing recommendations to
non-free software (which would still have to be done if Trisquel were based
on Debian). The only thing that might be easier with Debian is that the
kernel might not need to be deblobbed, but scripts take care of that, and
it's not worth giving up the practical advantages of being based on Ubuntu.
> But if the fsf has the numbers
> then there is no reason not to give them to me.
Which numbers? The number of Trisquel users? Why would the FSF know that? The
amount of money the FSF gives to Trisquel? We already know the answer: none.
> I cannot find any pieces of information about trisquel.
Of course not. The FSF has never spent money to fund Trisquel, so it would
make no sense for Trisquel to be mentioned. Wouldn't it be weird if financial
statements listed all the things that money *wasn't* spent on? The list would
> I have heard fsf has set an amount of time he can
> spend on trisquel.
His workload at the FSF was preventing him from spending time on Trisquel,
and once his workload was normalized he had more time to work on Trisquel.
However, as far as I know he is not paid for the time he spends on Trisquel.
Where did you hear otherwise?
> No. Asking people to use and support free software and hardware
> which can run on free software only also if it is
> inconvenient and then refusing to spend 2000usd on getting
> a talos computer and have it tested such that interested
> people can inform themselves is a wrong decision.
You don't have to use every single piece of free software and hardware that
exists in order to recommend it. I don't use Trisquel and Parabola and
Hyperbola and Uruk and Guix and PureOS etc. because I have no need to use
that many FSDG distros. That doesn't mean I can't recommend that people use
FSDG distros. As for testing the Talos computer, RYF-endorsement could help
Raptor if they wanted to use the endorsement to help sell their product. Have
you asked them if they want this? If they do, they should talk to the FSF and
send them a unit. If they don't, then the FSF should focus on products by
vendors for who would find RYF-endorsement to be useful.
> Who covers the expenses for hosting trisquel? Who covers the expenses
regarding the trisquel forum?
If you want information about Trisquel's expenses, you should ask Trisquel
(David is probably the one to contact), not the FSF.
> If trisquel have few users and fsf cannot spend 2000usd
> on a computer and because other systems are available
> then no.
There not very many operating systems that are intended for beginners (which
is most people in the world). The only ones that come to mind are Windows,
macOS, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, and Trisquel. The only one of these that is
free is Trisquel, so without Trisquel it would be very difficult for most
people to use a free system. Everyone deserves freedom, even if they are
inexperienced with technology. Funding Trisquel would be a good idea (if the
FSF could afford it) because it would improve the quality and speed of
releases, which would benefit current users and help bring in new users.
Buying a computer that the FSF does not need would not be a good idea at this
time. If the FSF needs new computers in the future it might then be a good
idea to consider Talos, but it should not be a priority now.
More information about the Freedom-misc