Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

[Jean Louis]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:28:53AM -0500, Jeff F. wrote:
> > So: Any hardware, containing and kind of software inside, and
> > recommended by free system distributions shall be compatible with
> > Free System Distribution Guidelines. This way, blobs, firmware, non-
> > free software in such hardware would not be recommended to users of
> > free software. Finally, that type of software often has a potential
> > power to take over the full computing control. The non-free hardware
> > has been recommended to users over few decades. The Free System
> > Distributions and Free Software movement is to make a turn and change
> > there, it is not there to promote non-free software and non-free
> > BIOS, it is there to eradicate it.
> >
> > Wordnet:
> > 2. (1) hypocrisy -- (insincerity by virtue of pretending to have
> > qualities or beliefs that you do not really have)
> 
> Non. Stop. Take a good, hard look at the PureOS website:
> https://puri.sm/pureos/
> 
> It does not, anywhere, in any way, "recommend non-free hardware".

OK, to be really pure, when you change the page, that it does not
promote your products, than simply say so.

Obviously you did follow the advice, and adapted the page. It can be
seen from a Google Cache link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r0hn5pM3HygJ:https://puri.sm/pureos/%2Bsite:puri.sm+pureos&hl=en&ct=clnk
 

As you modified the first paragraph: "Our products come pre-loaded
with PureOS—our derivative of Debian GNU/Linux main..." to "PureOS is
a derivative of Debian GNU/Linux main".

So to be pure, simply say "we modified the page", it shows the
willingness, which is good.

Otherwise I feel you try to tell me I spoke nonsense. If you have
modified the page, then it was not that much of a nonsense, isn't it?

> It uses the right terminology everywhere as far as I can see.

To that, I do not agree yet, I will agree once it really is so. Right
now, it is not. Review the analysis of the terminology here:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-11/msg00005.html

I do not personally mind what you do, and how you do it. I am
welcoming truly free system distributions.

My comments are not there to bash somebody or make somebody wrong. All
what I am doing is analysis of Free System Distribution Guidelines and
your pages.

When you say on your first page: "PureOS is entirely free/libre and
open-source, meaning you don’t have to trust our word that it respects
and protects you—it is independently verifiable by security experts
and software developers around the world. Should you find ways to
improve its security further, please get in touch with us!"

then I am simply reviewing the link:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html

and I find section "Please Avoid Repeating Propaganda and Confusion"
and there is a list of words to avoid:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html and then there is
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

"Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute
for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different set of views
based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for
your freedom in your computing, as a matter of justice. The open
source non-movement does not campaign for anything in this way."

Do you see?

When I find the terminology like that on your web page, I am asking
you to make differentiation and not equation.

If you are to make a free system distribution, to be endorsed, you
wish to comply to Free System Distribution Guideliness.

One of those guidelines is "Please Teach Users about Free Software".

I am not sure how you can teach people about free software when using
"open source" terminology.

You should go one by one, and review other points, and either decide
to modify or not modify, I don't mind what you do. My comments are
related to guidelines and I am comparing your website, your
information to the guidelines. That is all.

> There is absolutely no part of
> https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
> ...that says that a distro website cannot be part of another
> website.

Me I also don't say so.

> I'm surprised you keep coming up with FUD and red herrings in this
> thread, instead of helping a group of people who try to make the
> business case for Free Software by making it palatable to a wider
> audience while staying true to everything Free Software stands for.

I am a consultant, and currently, I am dealing with very valuable
businesses. That I am taking time to analyse and compare your website
promoting the OS to the guidelines, I consider help, free help:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-11/msg00005.html

And that you have modified something on the page, shows that you do
care of it, that is good.

On the other hand I see how hard you are taking such analysis.

> As Zlatan pointed out many times, this is about getting this fully Free
> Software distribution endorsed as being what it is. It has nothing to
> do with whatever hardware you, a company, or "Joe Plumber" next door
> decides to install it on willfully.

The distribution guidelines are not for software only. It is for a
group that is developing that software. The guidelines are there to
help distribution developers make their distribution qualify. It is
about teaching people the free software movement.

You have the link "PureOS is entirely free/libre and open-source":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Free_software

and you don't have a link pointing neither to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Definition or to
http://www.gnu.org

Free Software is not equal to FLOSS. That shall be part of teaching
the users of free software.

Jean Louis