Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

[Jean Louis]

Ohh, Dima:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:58:44PM +0200, Dima Krasner wrote:
> IMHO, the excessive strictness reflected in the FSDG certification
> process is the root of many problems in the free software world and
> especially those that involve the FSF. It won't be very hard to
> demonstrate that most if not all FSDG-approved distros are
> incompliant, when *anything* counts as valid evidence (including
> things like "-debian", in version strings of server version strings
> sent by infrastructure servers).

I really don't see strictness there. And I fully understand that
somebody who did not research the definitions of words, and in general
about free software -- that such person may get impression of
strictness. It requires learning. The GNU website is there
http://www.gnu.org

The free software world begun with GNU software and project to make a
free operating system.

Finally, the GNU GPL license, the free software world's license, is
according to media most widely used license for software, in the whole
world. If so, then those developers did understand the reasons and
purposes of the free software.

The words debian or things like "-debian" are nowhere forbidden to say
or mention.

You should put attention on differentiation, and not equation. Not
everything is equal to everything. Debian GNU/Linux as distribution
and movement is not equal to things like "-debian".

Further, with the generalization, you do not bring up arguments. 

> The FSF loses its power, relevance and legitimacy when it does
> things with this strict, elitist attitude. Although I understand the
> ethical reasoning behind the FSF/RMS way of doing things, I believe
> that free software that can be embedded in proprietary software and
> free software made by a company that pays for this by selling
> hardware that depends on (some) non-free software is still better
> than proprietary software, for ethical (and technical) reasons. Such
> software doesn't instantaneously make the world 100% free as we'd
> like, but it's a slight move in the right direction and has value,
> especially when the ethical TODO is well-documented and visible to
> the users.

I don't see what you see. I just see the opposite. And there is no
elitist attitude that I have observed, there is helpful attitude, that
users use the software, and motivation to others to create the
software. There is excellent documentation, guides, manuals, there are
programming languages, and tools, office packages, what not.

I see results. And I base my decisions on results.

With free software you can do what you wish. I am not sure if you can
just embed it in proprietary, but there are ways of using it
together.

There is no rejection of any company, selling hardware, with free
software on such hardware, even if such hardware contains some
proprietary software.

Only let us not equate everything together. Nobody is against
installing free software on some proprietary BIOS based hardware. That
is the freedom given in the free software, use it as you wish.

To differentiate, the free software is not equal to Free System
Distribution. Do you see?

There are differences if you have a software in front of you, or you
have whole group of people, who are supposed to teach others of free
software, and there are certainly some guidelines how to teach
others, how to promote the such endorsed Free System Distribution.

I do not see anything hard to follow in those guidelines. That is
maybe because myself I understand definitions.

Some other people do not come from free software world, they maybe
come from a proprietary world. So they don't know it well, did not
study it well, but have a good sense to sell the notebooks. And they
wish to bring it closer to the free software users.

Nothing wrong with it.

When I however see "Librem" I guess it is with Libreboot or something,
just to find out that I am disappointed, there is no Libreboot, and no
true intention to implement it. My opinion, and my rejection. I am a
potential buyer, don't forget that. But proprietary BIOS based
notebooks I can find anywhere here in Tanzania.

That group wish to apply to become endorsed system distribution. Why
don't you go over there to that group, and tell them then the
difference between the "open source" and free software. By changing
the terminology they are currently using such as FLOSS and FOSS, they
would show the intention to promote and teach free software. And not
open source. Did you read my references on open source? It can be
proprietary, even with sources. So open source is not equal to free
software. So, you are faced with a task to differentiate. If you
don't, then everything is equal, and you will come back into such
resentment mood.

Why not tell them that there is no "alternative" to proprietary
software? By changing those public statements on their websites, they
come closer to a true free software distribution.

That is just like when a government teacher wishes to engage in
school, the teacher himself/herself must have education and
certification. That is similar process when a distribution, and
developers behind, wish to get endorsed. They shall know how to teach,
and to avoid recommending non-free BIOS, and to avoid using
such destructive terminology.

Jean Louis