Le 29/07/2014 à 15h06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Garreau, Alexandre galex-713@galex-713.eu wrote:
For exemple, a Debian *OS* is *by default* fully free, but Debian *project* (or at least people too close to it) often encourage you to install proprietary software, notably through nonfree repository, where
Right, I am one of those who would encourage on pragmatic reasons to use the non-free repository to install documentation for most GNU software.
Well, a repository for non-free documentation would be better, since documentation hasn't to be as free as functional software (for reasons explained by FSF) and therefore doesn't cause ethical problems, while proprietary software does.
Well, as the debian stance showed, it causes ethical problems to a large part of the free software community.
The question is not if they find a problem to it, but if there is actually one, if it is justified.
I would never encourage anyone to use Trisquel because that renders any desktop machine useless due to FSF's layman opinion on the openness of firmware and hardware.
I noticed a better compatibility than you say. Most of time just wifi card doesn't work on laptop (so we need purchasing another at Thinkpinguin for instance), sometimes graphic card... That's all. Most of times it just works. Personally I find worse to encourage anyone to use the non-free counterpart to Trisquel, Ubuntu, for same reasons explained by FSF:
I believe Werner was arguing on Debian. Ubuntu is a different thing.
He spoke about Trisquel, which is a different thing.
I have never seen that Debian encourages the use of proprietary software; that is cheap FSF propaganda.
If not Debian, at least people close to it: people on main IRC channels regularly do it, and Debian wiki does too. I wasn't repeating what FSF said, I was talking of my own experience. Then of course official Debian project claimed that they can't work enough to correct everything of that, and that's true. They can't censor irc channel for that, and they can't check all wiki edits.
Could you be more precise? I've been using Debian for 20 years, and I've never seen any endorsement or encouragement of not-free software. On the contrary it encourages the use of free software (see https://www.debian.org/intro/free).
I saw several times people on #debian@FreeNode recommanding nonfree, or pages on wiki saying to just include nonfree, without any discleamer, warning or even mention to other possibility (the device could be non completely required, or an alternative could maybe be purchased).
Debian is the best OS if you want to use _fully free software_ according to a solid definition established by a large democratic group
Well, no, there's also the nonfree repository which makes Debian quite compatible with non-free-software-friendly hardware.
Non-free software is easy to replace by free software. Non-free hardware or hardware with non-free drivers has costs to be replaced that may be insignificant to you, but not to many others that want to join the community. Denying access to the internet because someone is on a laptop that its wireless card requires a binary blob to be loaded is absurd and pretty denies access to free software on commodity hardware.
Yes. Still the fact is that we can live without wifi (with ethernet, just connect to some other computer and share connection, or with powerline, etc.) and that it harms freedom, so if we have no choice of course we have either to submit to driver editors or not to use the driver.