On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Michel Salim" <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I was just over at gnu.org to download the anniversary video recorded >> by Stephen Fry, and while I was there decided to take a look at what >> systems they recommend as being free. > > I've got all the respect in the world for the work that RMS has done > over the years ... but: > > gnu.org does not acknowledge any license but the GPL as being "truly > free", and they'll never acknowledge any system that is not 100.00% > GPL code as being "truly free". Draw your own conclusions about how > that stance connects to reality. Tom, having been advised by RMS to use the three clause BSD license on code, I have personal experience that refutes your claim. It's also pretty easy to refute it based on documentation on the GNU.org site: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses The reason the FSF isn't advocating Fedora at this point is pretty much only because Fedora doesn't yet strip the binary firmware provided by the Linux kernel (and still provides some re-distributable binary firmware in other packages, the microcode package and alsa-firmware I think). I suppose there is also still some inertia from back at a time when Fedora wasn't as good it is now with licensing checking on packages. I think the situation right now is pretty unfortunate for all involved: Fedora isn't getting the level of acknowledgement it deserves, and the FSF is indirectly promoting Ubuntu, a distribution which is, as far as I can tell, a primary driving factor in new users using and depending on proprietary software. The notion that firmware ought to be free isn't absurd: It doesn't take much effort to find examples of firmware imposing unreasonable limits on users, or firmware containing nasty hidden security bugs. But non-free firmware is something that has only been called for in earnest somewhat recently, in the past it wasn't the lowest hanging fruit in improving user freedom that it is now. It also wasn't so obviously important, but since firmware is increasingly able to spy on users or limit their actions, and since it's increasingly subject to upgrades by manufacturers which are against the user's interests, it becomes increasingly important that people have the ability to understand and modify their field-replaceable firmware. We can probably expect that once free firmware becomes easy for everyone to accomplish the FSF will move on to promoting an additional tougher requirement, thats their job and their nature. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
