[Freedom-misc] Re : I think the Raptor machines run Trisquel
lcerf at dcc.ufmg.br
lcerf at dcc.ufmg.br
Sun Sep 9 23:00:48 CEST 2018
If someone says, debian main contains software you may not use, share, modify
and redistribute then everyone should rebute him.
Nobody said that. However, a case can be made w.r.t. the Artistic License
1.0 (and, I guess, a few other uncommon licenses): Debian considers it
DFSG-compliant; the FSF does not consider it FSDG-compliant.
Would it not be more efficient if there was a cooperation between trisquel
and debian such that trisquel would get the software before any non free
software gets added?
As chaosmonk told you: Ubuntu adds free software too. And it improves upon
Debian's package (see the word "ubuntu" in the versions of many packages that
Trisquel ships). Most package helpers written by Trisquel developers remove
recommendations for proprietary software. Those recommendations are present
in Debian. Ubuntu does not add them.
Notice also that Debian's separation between main and non-free is not much
better than Ubuntu's separation between main/universe and
restricted/multiverse. As a consequence, I do not understand why it would be
"more efficient" to base Trisquel on Debian. I mentioned the Artistic
License 1.0 above but the reverse "misclassification" (from FSDG's
perspective) is more common: Debian considers the GNU FDL with invariant
section(s) (typically the GNU manifesto) nonfree.
If not then adding and removing the same software is stupid and ought to be
avoided. Why can't it be avoided?
I do not know what you are talking about. Care to give examples of Trisquel
reverting changes that Ubuntu introduces?
Why is trisquel derived from ubuntu and not debian?
It used to. According to quidam (Trisquel's leader) when the switch was made
(I hope I remember well), it was because Ubuntu has more and more recent free
software than Debian stable. That is still true. Also, gNewSense is based
on Debian. (I know: the gNewSense project is apparently dormant and Debian
stable currently has more recent software than Trisquel... but still less
recent than the latest Ubuntu LTS that Trisquel 9 will have as a base).
Could trisquel not deal with that part of the configuration by providing a
script which people would then run if they wanted to?
I believe you are referring to fetching the software from a third-party
server (otherwise, it is adding packages absent from Ubuntu to Trisquel's
repository: that happens), such as Ubuntu's or the upstream developers'
repository. That would not satisfy the FSDG. More specifically, that
paragraph, which is the one I am constantly discussing in this post:
A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree
information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should
have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for
installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution
refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including
free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be
true tomorrow. Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree
plugins, documentation, and so on.
Also, that would not be user-friendly.
I asked fsf to tell all and every cost fsf defrey regarding trisquel for the
years 2016 and 2017? And I asked how many use trisquel or how may they think
use trisquel? I got no answers.
See https://www.fsf.org/about/financial for FSF's finances.
The answer to your first question is 0. The FSF employs quidam (Trisquel's
leader) but for administrating its servers. Not for working on Trisquel.
Estimating the number of users of Trisquel is hard and I do not see why the
FSF should spend effort on that. https://trisquel.info/download tells us
that Trisquel 8's final ISO was downloaded 38490 times. That is not the
number of Trisquel 8 users: I downloaded a release candidate, I upgraded
(rather than doing a fresh install) my parents' computer from Trisquel 7 to
Trisquel 8, a same ISO can be used to install Trisquel on many machines, etc.
Stallman told me, fsf will not obtain a talos computer because fsf already
has free software computers and a talos computer would be too expensive.
That looks reasonable.
There are other free software systems than trisquel. If trisquel gets money
from fsf, it should stop.
It does not. Although I would love if it did. The FSF used to pay Ian
Murdock for developing Debian (full-time, around 1995). It could now pay
quidam, part-time, for developing Trisquel.
More information about the Freedom-misc