Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[jeff]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Really, arguing that Fedora's stance is inconsistent, while in 
>>> reality yours is doesn't gain you much respect. Either:
>>>
>>> 1) all firmware is software and must be free in which case support 
>>> for evil hardware which comes with the firmware embedded must be 
>>> removed from linux-libre!
>>
>> No, because the goal of linux-libre is to have a kernel which doesn't 
>> distribute non-free software.
>>
> 
> Oh, but promoting the usage and buying of devices which contain non-free 
> firmware by supporting those is ok,

When have I ever done that??? You're just putting words in my mouth.

> because it isn't non-free firmware 
> that is evil. It is the distributing of non-free firmware that is evil. 
> Yes a very consistent and logical pov for which I applaud you!

I have never used the word evil wrt software. Again, you are putting words in 
my mouth.

But not distributing non-free software is definitely a goal. It is also the 
supposed mission of Fedora.

> Basicly the message you are sending is: people please by devices with 
> firmware in rom, preferably otp rom, because then certainly there is no 
> evil.

That's the message I'm sending?>?!?  Again, you're just putting words in my 
mouth. I've never said anything of the sort.

> Not being able to ever change the firmware is good, because as 
> long as firmware never gets distributed separately from the hardware, we 
> can pretend its not there and live our ignorance is bliss lifes thinking 
> that we are in the all software in my house is free utopia. Because if I 
> cannot see it it isn't there.

Uh, actually, I don't think that way at all. Again, you are just making things 
up that you say I am thinking. For one, I know I'd *love* to remove the 
non-free BIOS from my Eee, for example (and willing to pay developers to do that).

You're just making shit up.

> Really that I didn't think of this before, it is so brilliant! I guess I 
> should do away with all my PC's and instead switch to an internet 
> appliance device, because then I no longer have to worry about whether I 
> have any non-free software at all. Certainly if I don't need to install 
> the software myself it isn't there at all then.

We're talking about



    *  *  * SOFTWARE THE FEDORA PROJECT IS ---> DISTRIBUTING <--- *  *  *



not about the hardware people already have.

>>> 2) all firmware is considered part of the hardware, independend of 
>>> the distribution mechanism of that firmware (the Fedora pov).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---> No, the difference is Fedora is *DISTRIBUTING* the non-free 
>> bits.  <---
> 
> So the goal of linux-libre is to not distribute non-free software. Do 
> you ever buy a PC / laptop?

Yes.

> If so you're involved in a transaction which 
> almost certainly involves the distribution of non-free firmware. Worse, 
> not only are you involved in such a transaction, you are _paying_ for 
> the system of which the non-free firmware is an integral part and thus 
> you are paying for non-free firmware, thereby promoting the production 
> of non-free firmware.

Yes, and that sucks. And stallman had to originally write emacs on SunOS or 
whatever he used. It doesn't mean we should stop trying to make things free.

> Do you ever sell any of you PC hardware (motherboard, latop, printer) 
> second hand and / or give it away to friends / family, then you are 
> *DISTRIBUTING* non-free firmware. Really, they should put you in prison 
> for that!

...

> Please stop being so hypocritical.

I'm not being hypocritical.

> Putting it simply there are 2 possible stances on non-free firmware:

Only 2?

> 1) Its evil

Well, this is wrong from the start because I don't even believe in evil. Anyway.

> and as such should be erradicated, therefor I will not buy 
> or use
>    any devices with it. Nor will I add support for any devices containing
>    non-free firmware to my Free operating system

I see it more like RMS originally writing emacs on a proprietary system. Though 
removing devices that *only* run with proprietary firmware may be a 
possibility, though many devices run fine without the firmware (for example, 
the tg3 will run without the firmware that's in the kernel).

> 2) Its evil, but allas it is here, so although we are not in favor it we
>    condone it.

3) non-free software sucks and we should do our best to not distribute it.

But you're not *condoning* it you're ***DISTRIBUTING*** it.

> The its evil, but ok as long as not distributed vision is just plain 
> hypocritical, so you are happy *USING* it, and passing device which 
> contain it along to friends / family, but distributing it in a way where 
> it is not hidden inside a device is not OK?

But I'm not claiming that is free software if I hand someone a macbook or 
whatever. I'm also not happy if there is non-free software in there (but i'd 
just install free software on there).

I think the "not OK" part comes in when you say that you are distributing 
free/open software when you aren't and you know it.

> Anyways this will be my last mail in this thread, I cannot argue against 
> so much hypocrisy and bend around corners logic.

So much hypocrisy? You just put tons of words in my mouth that I've never said. 
Pfft.

-Jeff