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

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

> In regards to your website, now the website is promoting both Puri.sm
> and PureOS. And on many pages, you have "alternatives" to proprietary
> software, references to FLOSS and FOSS, and others.

[Just a curious passer-by here.]

Sorry, what’s wrong with having a page listed free / libre replacements for 
nonfree programs?  If you are referring  to the list of confusing words on 
gnu.org [0], the item about ‘alternatives’ seems to address itself to 
describing free software *in general* as an alternative to propritary, is not 
it?

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Alternative

At any rate, it’s not hard to find specific ‘alternatives’ to specific nonfree 
software on FSF’s website:

“We also promote the use of the new "video tag" standard as an alternative to 
Adobe Flash for embedding audio and video in webpages.”
— https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/

“Most of it is delivered with Flash, whicha is proprietary, nonstandard 
software. Free software alternatives like GNU Gnash are available, but the user 
experience isn't always as seamless as it ought to be.”
— https://www.fsf.org/news/supporting-webm

“iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon 
that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let 
you use free software”
— https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

“So, what's the alternative? One real alternative that exists today is 
Savannah.”
— https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/savannah

And on RMS’s personal website also:

“What to use instead [of Skype]? The most obvious alternative is a 
long-distance phone card. They are quite cheap nowadays, and they work with any 
phone. There are also free programs you can use, such as Ekiga, Mumble, Jitsi 
and more.”
— https://stallman.org/skype.html

> They have good intentions, but never realized
> that open source is about using the software with sources readable,
> regardless if sources are free of not. You see Debian GNU/Linux is
> FLOSS oriented. They offer "open source" on non-free servers, so one
> can see the sources, but does not get all the freedom.

Actually, Debian’s ‘non-free’ repository section contains all sorts of nonfree 
software that is not prohibited to distribute, not only that with sources 
available.