Request: Completely free OS

[urjaman]

I must also note that your OS will not have bluetooth since it requires a binary blob firmware to be loaded into it. Which is a thing where I'm against what FSF thinks, but will not expand on that.


The firmware is /lib/firmware/brf6300.bin and is in a package named pandora-firmware, so opkg remove pandora-firmware which will also remove wl1251-fw.bin and some bluetooth config which you wont need anyways...

 

[diligentcircle]

Are you sure about that? I've never heard that anywhere else.

 

[hedwards]

I'd rather have something that doesn't show the non-free stuff by default, but you can still use it to install non-free stuff if you really want to. Just make the distinction really clear - not like it is now, where everything is shown mixed together and it is quite hard to check what is free and what is non-free.

Absolutely not. It should show the software by default and let those that care hide it. This isn't a portable that's only being sold to elite hackers, lots of folks are less technically inclined, hiding software by default is a no-no. People who are informed enough to care, are informed enough to toggle a toggle button to hide the non-free software.

I don't like your idea of hiding software from people to protect them because you think they don't know any better. You can make it plain as day what your views are and link to FSF's documentation.. if they don't care or can't figure it out then your involvement should end there. FSF recommendations should be about providing hardware to people who have an interest in only keeping software that's GPL compatible. If they don't already understand or care about this then they shouldn't be a target for your recommendation.

Indeed, I respect and appreciate that there are people out there pushing to make sure that one can use only free software on a device and still have a device that functions, but forcing it on other people isn't right.


Like I said in the post you didn't read, because I hadn't posted it, people who are up on the issue enough to care, are informed enough to opt out. Adding a toggle to hide the software and leaving it disabled by default really ought to be more than enough for everybody.

 

[_wb_]

hedwards: I was not talking about the default setting of the default OS, I was talking about the default setting in onpon4's proposed free OS.


I think all we need is a PNDManager config option to filter PNDs based on license. In the default OS it would be disabled by default, in onpon4's OS it would be configured to filter non-free stuff by default (and I think it would be OK if you can manually override that default to show non-free stuff too, I don't think it's needed to try to make it impossible to install non-free stuff).


However, PNDManager would not be very useful if you don't have wifi to download stuff with anyway.


Isn't it possible to make a free wifi driver? How much work would be involved? That would be a nice thing to have, even in the default OS. Maybe some of the wifi issues are caused by software, so it might even be possible to fix some of those issues.

 

[notaz]

Remember, this proposed OS alternative does not work with 3D or WiFi, the second of these features being very important if you don't have a WiFi dongle (and still a nice thing to have even if you do).

Note that most dongles also need binary blobs to work. In some cases the binary blobs are compiled into GPL drivers in data section.

Are you sure about that? I've never heard that anywhere else.

Yes that's actually true, I forgot about that. So the recipe to make default OS free becomes:

sudo su

opkg remove libgles-omap3

opkg remove pandora-firmware

And optionally

opkg remove pandora-pndstore

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I would oppose any change that limits people from viewing closed source or commercial titles by default. An 'opt in' way of doing this I guess I wouldn't object to.

 

[diligentcircle]

In the default OS it would be disabled by default, in onpon4's OS it would be configured to filter non-free stuff by default (and I think it would be OK if you can manually override that default to show non-free stuff too, I don't think it's needed to try to make it impossible to install non-free stuff).

If there is a separate "libre" repo, then this override would involve a config file where you can change your software source to the normal Repo. This can't be a line that is simply commented out, but rather it has to be a change that the user very explicitly makes. I'm not in favor of the regular PNDManager doing this, however; instead, there should be a separate "libre" version which only shows free software. The regular version should give the option of only free software (and maybe the option of only showing proprietary software, but that's really unnecessary), like Fedora's package manager does. The "libre" version can simply remove the option to show nonfree software, and if you want to see the nonfree software, there's nothing stopping you from getting the normal version (and the default OS would give you the normal version anyway).


If it's simply a tag in PNDs, then there is no good way for it to be implemented all in the same program, because a simple "yes"/"no" option doesn't do it. There needs to be a normal version which shows nonfree software by default and allows viewing only free software, and a "libre" version that only shows free software.

Note that most dongles also need binary blobs to work. In some cases the binary blobs are compiled into GPL drivers in data section.

Though it's a bit big, Think Penguin sells one that doesn't, and I've confirmed with the shop owner that it is USB 2.0: https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/penguin-wireless-g-usb-adapter

 

[Exophase]

If there is a separate "libre" repo, then this override would involve a config file where you can change your software source to the normal Repo. This can't be a line that is simply commented out, but rather it has to be a change that the user very explicitly makes. I'm not in favor of the regular PNDManager doing this, however; instead, there should be a separate "libre" version which only shows free software. The regular version should give the option of only free software (and maybe the option of only showing proprietary software, but that's really unnecessary), like Fedora's package manager does. The "libre" version can simply remove the option to show nonfree software, and if you want to see the nonfree software, there's nothing stopping you from getting the normal version (and the default OS would give you the normal version anyway).

A separate repo is even worse than a separately maintained fork of PNDManager that does nothing but removes any ability to enable the non-free list. When I say this is bad I mean it's a big waste of resources. I hope you expect the disk space and bandwidth to be provided by yourself or someone else who insists on this.


I don't understand why you want to go through all these hoops to make it as hard as possible for the user to get non-free stuff. Why is it not okay to have a line that can simply be commented out? At least admit that this goes way beyond giving the user assurance that he/she doesn't get non-free software. No one is going to accidentally change a line in a config file.


The regular version should be able to do arbitrary and complex license filters, there's more people may care about than whether or not something is compatible with GPL.

 

[diligentcircle]

The regular version should be able to do arbitrary and complex license filters, there's more people may care about than whether or not something is compatible with GPL.

GPL compatibility has nothing to do with it.


But sure, a flexible filter would be fine.

 

[Exophase]

What do you mean GPL compatibility has nothing to do with it? When you refer to free software what do you mean if not FSF's definition, which AFAIK is equivalent with GPL compatible? If you're not talking about FSF endorsement then the term "free" loses all meaning, but I'm sure you are.

 

[diligentcircle]

What do you mean GPL compatibility has nothing to do with it? When you refer to free software what do you mean if not FSF's definition, which AFAIK is equivalent with GPL compatible? If you're not talking about FSF endorsement then the term "free" loses all meaning, but I'm sure you are.

No, it doesn't mean "GPL compatible". CC BY-SA is incompatible with the GPL, and it is a free license according to the FSF. A license is free if it gives the user the four essential freedoms.


The GNU GPL is a copyleft license, which means that any work licensed under it can only be redistributed under the same license. When two programs have different copyleft licenses, they are incompatible. Some terms can also render a license incompatible with the GPL without making it nonfree. There is a perfectly big list of GPL-incompatible free licenses on gnu.org.

 

[Exophase]

I don't see how it's merely determined by the four essential freedoms when there are several criteria listed as violations in the non-free license list that aren't implied by these four freedoms. For instance,


"It does not allow charging for distribution" or "It does not allowing selling for more than the cost of distribution"


"It does not allow distribution of source code without binaries"


"It requires notifying the original author when modifications are made"


"It does not allow private changes to be made"


The first one in particular is a major recurring theme and I think it's highly obnoxious to assume that people want to avoid software that doesn't allow commercial distribution, just because FSF thinks it's your moral right to make money off of other people's work. Their four freedoms are a nice reasonable sounding set of values but the truth is that they don't even begin to cover all the nuances FSF takes issue with.


At any rate, FSF may be more liberal with their definition of "freedom" than I was aware, but the basic point still stands that people may be interested in more than just their standards, and it's needlessly biased and myopic to split into nothing more than FSF and non-FSF approved versions when you can cater to whatever licensing values a person can have.


Let me extend the old food analogy some more: my girlfriend is vegan but unlike some vegans she eats honey. She also doesn't mind if the food she eats is prepared in a facility that handles things she doesn't eat. So she isn't going to want a "vegan" menu from a restaurant because then she risks not being able to get these foods because some other vegan doesn't like them. She also resents anyone's claim that she's "not really vegan." Do you see where I'm going with this?


If someone decides that the FSF's disapproval of non-commercial redistribution (just as an example) is something they don't agree with they should be able to go into the config file and modify the license filter. There should absolutely not be an attempt to provide a different program (much less repo!) for every possible combination of personal feelings. And I'd be happier if there was less encouragement to just follow verbatim whatever FSF or any other organization thinks is best for them, even if that's the easier and lazier thing to do.

 

[diligentcircle]

Two of those quotes I'll give you for now (see below), but two of those quotes... um... let me just talk about them individually:

"It does not allow charging for distribution" or "It does not allowing selling for more than the cost of distribution"

Both of these refer to freedoms 2 and 3: the freedom to distribute, both commercially and noncommercially, exact copies and modified versions.

"It does not allow private changes to be made"

That is a HUGE offense to freedom, and the reason should be obvious: the freedom to redistribute your modified copies is... ahem... a freedom. It is optional. It must be optional.

The first one in particular is a major recurring theme and I think it's highly obnoxious to assume that people want to avoid software that doesn't allow commercial distribution, just because FSF thinks it's your moral right to make money off of other people's work.

Free software allows commercial redistribution. Anything that doesn't is not free software.

Their four freedoms are a nice reasonable sounding set of values but the truth is that they don't even begin to cover all the nuances FSF takes issue with.

I'll give that the four freedoms are only a starting point. There are indeed some minor nuances, namely: if a requirement is a serious hurdle to users exercising one of the four freedoms. For example, you listed not allowing redistribution without binaries and requiring notifying the original author when modifications are made. These requirements are unreasonable (serve no purpose) and make violation of the license when trying to exercise freedoms 2 and 3 extremely easy.

At any rate, FSF may be more liberal with their definition of "freedom" than I was aware, but the basic point still stands that people may be interested in more than just their standards, and it's needlessly biased and myopic to split into nothing more than FSF and non-FSF approved versions when you can cater to whatever licensing values a person can have.

Why can't the normal version of PNDManager do that?

Let me extend the old food analogy some more:

Please don't. The analogy sucks. I only ever brought it up to convey the ethical dilemma I was facing with the competition. It has been extended far too much.

my girlfriend is vegan but unlike some vegans she eats honey. She also doesn't mind if the food she eats is prepared in a facility that handles things she doesn't eat. So she isn't going to want a "vegan" menu from a restaurant because then she risks not being able to get these foods because some other vegan doesn't like them. She also resents anyone's claim that she's "not really vegan." Do you see where I'm going with this?

Not really. You'll need to get rid of the analogy, because as I've already said, it's a flawed analogy.


If you're just saying that different people have different preferences, maybe another version of PNDManager can be made for some other group. But you're suggesting offering options only (not hiding things that are bad), yet there is no reason that this method shouldn't just be in the regular PNDManager rather than being a separate version.

If someone decides that the FSF's disapproval of non-commercial redistribution (just as an example) is something they don't agree with they should be able to go into the config file and modify the license filter. There should absolutely not be an attempt to provide a different program (much less repo!) for every possible combination of personal feelings. And I'd be happier if there was less encouragement to just follow verbatim whatever FSF or any other organization thinks is best for them, even if that's the easier and lazier thing to do.

I really can't say anything other than "I disagree".


You should know by now that I don't want this for me. For my personal Pandora usage, simply being able to see what is free and what isn't would work just fine. I want this because then I would be able to recommend the Pandora, in some form, at least until a better unit of its size crops up.


But you're reminding me how much of a pipe dream this is, mostly because of this community.

 

[Exophase]

Both of these refer to freedoms 2 and 3: the freedom to distribute, both commercially and noncommercially, exact copies and modified versions.

Where are you reading this? I'm getting it straight from here: http://www.gnu.org/p...hy/free-sw.html

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  

I don't see the word commercial anywhere. This is a big deal. "Distribution" does not in any way imply making a profit off of something. That's called selling.

That is a HUGE offense to freedom, and the reason should be obvious: the freedom to redistribute your modified copies is... ahem... a freedom. It is optional. It must be optional.

Nothing in any definitions I see for freedom implies this, but I guess when you get reign over definitions like FSF does that's probably a moot point.

Free software allows commercial redistribution. Anything that doesn't is not free software.

I'm not sure to take this as a useless tautology or religious dogma.

I'll give that the four freedoms are only a starting point. There are indeed some minor nuances, namely: if a requirement is a serious hurdle to users exercising one of the four freedoms. For example, you listed not allowing redistribution without binaries and requiring notifying the original author when modifications are made. These requirements are unreasonable (serve no purpose) and make violation of the license when trying to exercise freedoms 2 and 3 extremely easy.

It is merely your opinion that these serve no purpose. Obviously the people who made these licenses found value and purpose in these requirements. I could easily argue that reporting changes helps improve software development by allowing improvements to be made back into mainline and avoiding splintering the userbase into using different forks that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. And it helps bring into the loop people who will be able to give a broader perspective on how to work with the software. But no, you say it serves no purpose.. you know, that's a really strong stance to try to prove.

Why can't the normal version of PNDManager do that?

Why make a specific version to cater to not being able to do that?

Please don't. The analogy sucks. I only ever brought it up to convey the ethical dilemma I was facing with the competition. It has been extended far too much.

Not really. You'll need to get rid of the analogy, because as I've already said, it's a flawed analogy.

I don't see how my vegan analogy sucks. It seems incredibly apt to me. Maybe you just don't like being compared to them. If you're going to say it sucks and it's flawed then you should say why, otherwise don't bother.

If you're just saying that different people have different preferences, maybe another version of PNDManager can be made for some other group. But you're suggesting offering options only (not hiding things that are bad), yet there is no reason that this method shouldn't just be in the regular PNDManager rather than being a separate version.

Of course doing a different version for everyone's preferences is ridiculous. And no, I didn't say that it can't hide things that are bad - I'm saying that the config file can FILTER by license using a particular filter boolean/regexp/whatever meaning it HIDES THAT CONTENT. Then your distro can default with that setting. Your problem is even allowing for the possibility for an educated individual who specifically wants to be able to get the non-free stuff to go in and change that string. Of course this should be in the regular version. It should be in all the versions. There shouldn't be other versions.

I really can't say anything other than "I disagree".

You should know by now that I don't want this for me. For my personal Pandora usage, simply being able to see what is free and what isn't would work just fine. I want this because then I would be able to recommend the Pandora, in some form, at least until a better unit of its size crops up.


But you're reminding me how much of a pipe dream this is, mostly because of this community.

So far you've gotten directions on how to remove the non-free software and you've gotten a lot of people who support the notion of modifying PNDManager so it can be made to not show non-FSF free software by default. You've gotten resistance on exactly one thing: sticking with a version of PNDManager that outright can't, via config file, list non-free software. So you need the source to be forked or at least a different build time option - but is that enough for you? Or is it also no good that people can easily modify the source code so it'll remove the hardcoded filter? If commenting out one line of a config file is too easy do we have to make it harder than commenting out one line of the source?


It's like you have to get every last thing exactly as you want it or it's all for nothing. Maybe you think an inability to compromise on anything is a virtue, personally I think it's FSF's most unattractive feature.


And seriously, most of this opposition has been with me and you're blaming the whole community?

 

[diligentcircle]

I don't see the word commercial anywhere. This is a big deal. "Distribution" does not in any way imply making a profit off of something. That's called selling.

Do I really need to do "find" searches for you now?

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

If you have a decent browser, all you need to do is press "Ctrl-F" on your keyboard.

Your problem is even allowing for the possibility for an educated individual who specifically wants to be able to get the non-free stuff to go in and change that string.

No, my problem is with making it a simple switch, or an uncommented line. For this reason, a separate (mirror) repo would work better; the option can just be a resource locator for the repo to look at. But if it simply doesn't support not filtering for free software, that's fine, too.

 

[Exophase]

Do I really need to do "find" searches for you now?

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

If you have a decent browser, all you need to do is press "Ctrl-F" on your keyboard.

For crying out loud. It's not in the four freedoms. That doesn't mean it's not on the page, that means it's not in the four bullet points. Unless you think "four freedoms" means "anything they typed on that page." You can try to be a smartass about this all you want, you made a claim that freedoms 2 and 3 said "both commercially and non-commercially" and that's flat out wrong.


FSF demands other criteria outside of the four freedoms and that is my entire point. And requiring that you can sell the software is not in any way a minor nuance.

No, my problem is with making it a simple switch, or an uncommented line. For this reason, a separate (mirror) repo would work better; the option can just be a resource locator for the repo to look at. But if it simply doesn't support not filtering for free software, that's fine, too.

You have a problem with the user going into a config file and commenting out a line that sets the filter, as that's how it'd work in this scenario. That's not in any way different from what I said.


You could invert it and make it so the config file requires a line to be added to allow non-free listings, would that satisfy you instead? I mean, I hate to see the config file blatantly favor what a tiny minority wants but it's better than wasting resources maintaining a completely redundant repository or a completely separate PNDManager. Apparently that still wouldn't be good enough since you said you need a version that can't turn the filter off. But I don't see the difference - your way requires knowing the address of the non-free repository, my way requires knowing the option to add, either way requires the active participation of the user, and in the case of the PNDManager that can't allow non-free listings you can still modify the code to remove the restriction.


Really though, I don't understand why you're bothering here. If you feel that strongly about it you can make a custom PNDManager for your distro that does whatever you want and if you want to be responsible for it that's your problem. If it has the filtering ability that everyone else here thinks it should have then it'll be trivial to hardcode the filter string. So what's your problem, that you can't convince people to make this version for you? You said the community is blocking the likelihood of making your distro a reality and I'd like to know who is stopping you.

 

[Frederico]

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

Exophase this is called Defining what "Free Software" means, as in any time you see this word in the four freedoms you know what they mean so the four freedoms read as such

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Including for commercial purposes


The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).


The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to make a profit

 

[Exophase]

You added that part about commercial purposes. The misspelling kind of gives it away. Other than that you just pasted what I already pasted earlier. Please read all of my posts before responding to me, okay? I don't know what you're arguing with me for. I know that FSF requires that you can sell a program for it to be considered free, I know it says this on their page, and I know that their four freedoms does not say it. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose" absolutely does not, by itself, imply a freedom to collect money for the software.

 

[Frederico]

Please tell me what Freedom means so that I can know where I went wrong, because last time I checked "The Freedom to run the program, for any purpose" therefore includes commercial uses. That was part of the point of my post. I did read all of your posts

 

[Exophase]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The freedom to run a program for any purpose means that when you execute the program you can do whatever you want with it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with collecting money for it. I don't see how you could possibly draw that conclusion.