"Respects Your Freedom" certification?

[ZXDunny]

I can certainly understand why Debian would want to keep the "Proper Free According To The Pop...I mean RMS" status, because as several people has pointed out: The news that you've lost the right to use a certification or name or whatever isn't positive, and generally when such news are reported, the line will be "Debian maintainers slack off - main repos no longer free", not "Piddly detail gets FSF knickers in twist - Debian maintainers finally says 'Eh, f*ck it'".

What happens -

Pandora Team: "Unfortunately we have decided that we can no longer class ourselves as 100% "Free" due to needing to provide the very best for our customers and regrettably this means a closed-source binary graphics driver. Our repository remains as it was, committed to providing the best free software. Apologies if this was important to you, rest assured we're working towards a solution."

FSF: "OpenPandora is no longer free so we cannot endorse this brand any longer."

As you say, which is better? You know that this will happen. We've seen the attitudes of people like Onpon who will evangelise about Free even in communities they have no intention of joining, and nastily too.

D.

 

[_wb_]

I say: let's keep freedom in mind - not as the only criterion of course, but as an important one - while designing the hardware for a P2. If we end up with hardware for which no binary blobs are needed, then we make sure that the OS we ship is 100% Free and we apply for the RYF certification.

If at some later point, the OP2T wants to use non-free software after all, for whatever reason (maybe some blob works better than the RE'd FOSS driver), they still have plenty of options:

• Release the non-free software as a "third party" that is officially not related to the OP2T - that way anyone who wants can download and use the non-free software if they want, but the hardware still keeps the RYF label.
• Release a different "edition" of the hardware, under a different name and with a different cardboard box, which does not have RYF label and ships with non-free software.
• Drop the RYF label completely and presumably get some bad press and forum flamewars.

As for the argument that we shouldn't get RYF certification because the FSF are extremist religious zealots and you don't like their attitudes - to me, that sounds just silly. They're just being principled and consistent, and I don't see what's wrong with that. They choose freedom over convenience, and their pragmatic idealism has already proved its worth in the past decades. I don't mind if you prefer a compromise between freedom and convenience (so do I, by occasionally using non-free software), but it's at least good to know when and how you're making that compromise.

I don't understand why people tend to view ethical consistency as "extremism", especially if you agree with the underlying ethical principles. If you think that murdering people is wrong, do you then have to make sure that you keep a moderated and non-extremist position, e.g. by saying: "Serial killers who kill 100 people are bad, but if you kill just one person, then it's OK"? Of course not: you take the "extremist" position that killing people is bad, even if you kill "only" one. Software freedom is of course a morally somewhat less clear-cut and urgent topic than murdering, but it's the same idea: if your reasoning has led you to reject non-free software, then why shouldn't you be allowed to reject it completely?

Another analogy: vegetarians. Many people will agree that the current rate of meat consumption is ecologically unsustainable and unhealthy (non-free software has issues), some people choose to eat less meat for that reason (some people use some free software), and a few become 100% vegetarians (a few people use only free software). FSF endorsement is like a certified food label that says "100% vegetarian". It is useful because you can trust it - there won't be little bits of meat inside that aren't visible from the outside, even if it's only 1%. It is useful to have such a label for both vegetarians and not-quite-vegetarians-who-still-like-an-occasional-steak, and even for die-hard carnivores who nevertheless want to give veggie food a try. Nobody is forcing you to buy food with that label, and even if you buy it, nothing stops you from also buying meat. But at least it is clear what is what.

 

[_wb_]

You are free to customize your GRUB bootloader menu entries, but the default name that Debian calls itself - not just in the bootloader but also anywhere else - is definitely "Debian GNU/Linux" (at least if you're using the Linux kernel, otherwise it is called Debian GNU/<something else>).


Of course if you want to change your boot menu to say "ZXDunnyOS 3.14" instead of the default name, you are free to do so. But don't insist that that should be the proper name for the distro, just because "it says so on my GRUB screen".

I'd grab a screenshot if I could. It's Debian Potato unmodified running on a 486 DX2 50MHz, and doesn't say "GNU" anywhere. Just "Linux".


D.

Right. Well, you're probably using the old LILO then (that would be typical if you're running such an old version of Debian), not GRUB. The default label LILO used was indeed "Linux" (without the "Debian" I think). If you would use GRUB (which is a GNU program by the way!), then the default label would be "Debian GNU/Linux".

Anyway, the official name of Debian has always been "Debian GNU/Linux", for as long as I can remember. Check for example the original release page of Potato, and try to find the phrase "Debian Linux" anywhere on it: http://www.debian.org/releases/potato/

 

[comradekingu]

what is this fear about being controlled by the FSF? You entirelly made up your mind about how they endorse products.

We cant really attribute that to the FSF.

However, we are bound, if you will by the GPL license. If you don't like that, i sympathize, and i would suggest the BSD license to you.
If you don't like the FSF, dont use GPL, you are conveniently relying on their lawyers for your freedom.
BSD is an operating system you can forget about running without the topic at hand, free hardware. See, you were denied that freedom. Courtesy of qualcomm or imagination technologies, not the FSF.

And i will repeat it ad infinitum, once the hardware is free, it will remain free. If for some reason you change the hardware, remove said sticker from the box, and all will be fine. At the moment we have 3 different pandora versions and we have no problem differentiating between them.

FSF has only recently started up this hardware initiative, they have realized that you cant really bring your own computer, because it gets too tricky for regular users to keep track of what works 100%. I agree, as i have learnt to do it myself.

And if we discuss software, what is wrong with what we have, i like it a lot. Closed stuff, not so much. I don't think the analogy works with meat vs organic stuff too the extent its the exactly the same.

I would compare broken harware to junk food, there is a lot of junk nowadays in food that doesnt present itself that way. If you shop for real food you dont want fake food among the isles, and if you are really hardcore you dont want to support a shop that sells both i assume. And even then, it would only be a name, some sort of system to seperate it from the other shops. Let me make this clear, nobody hates on me for using Debian, except through proxy of the FSF, who I have no problem being a member off, and in turn have none of the problems described with me.

I think the FSF itself is sometimes too dogmatic, but then again they are up against everyone, not only everyone who finds flaws in their license or violates it, but everyone who actively does the opposite of what they deem as freedoms. I guess to make that distinction clear it doesnt make sense to settle with everyone using some form of GPL already, its about why. I just wish they had more fingerspitzengefühl about throwing their weight behind something.

I didn't see anyone object to google moving JSON development off their servers?

Debian isn't too strict, they have to ensure stability and legality for their users, meaning me and you and every company with a server that runs Debian. Right now its just IBM that is in the clear. http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

(Hilarious read)

Edit: It seems we have always been at war with Eurasia, even before the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/3/39/Official_Debian_Linux_to_GNU_Linux_name_change_announcement.pdf in 1994. That is however, language semantics (imo)

 

[Neelix]

I have to say I'm with those saying to aim to make the hardware match the certification,  but not actually apply for it.  

I think it makes a lot of sense to make and distribute the product with only free software, and even to provide pointers to free alternatives to non-free software where possible.   However  part of the requirements for the certification restrict the freedom of the seller to recommend non-free software if they feel it worthwhile without losing the certification.  This is not a freedom I'd be willing to give up.

- Neelix

 

[WizardStan]

The absurdity is that the standards for what constitutes a FSF-pure license are so slim that something like this would cause any upset at all.

It's not so much slim, it is specific and very pointed. It's a very specific set of rules for very specific purposes which are the only path towards the very specific goal that the FSF exists for. It isn't like the EU's fruit example at all, an arbitrary set of rules for arbitrary purposes towards a nebulous goal that can be achieved in other ways.It is a very simple goal: you are allowed to do anything you want with Free software. Anything, whether it be for good or evil. Debian says "ok, this is our 'free' repo" and sticks only stuff for which the license allows you the user to do anything they want with it, as per the definition of "free" software. Something comes along that doesn't match that definition, it can no longer exist in that very specific repo with the very specific rule for a very specific purpose.

It does become a problems for maintainers, and (in our case) hardware developers.

In what way is it our problem? And it's as much a problem for the maintainers as a 1956 'vette is a problem for a classic car restorer: they could simply buy a brand new car without all the work of restoring the old one but that would entirely defeat the purpose. It isn't a problem, it is entirely consistent with their ideals. The car restorer wants to take an old car and make it new again, and the Free software idealist wants to have software that matches their ideas of Freedom. In both cases it's a lot of work to get to your goal and there are a lot of shortcuts that can be taken to get to the final product but they all deviate from the stated intention. There is nothing wrong with having ideals and sticking to them so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

As you say, which is better? You know that this will happen

So which is it, is the certification something we don't want because it wouldn't bring in very many users at best and would bring in the wrong type of users at worst, or something we don't want to lose because that same tiny group of users that we don't want anyway would get mad? It can't be both. If we're worried about losing the endorsement of this group then they are either substantial or important, and if they are neither substantial nor important than why would we care if we lose them?

 

[F_Slim]

Is it enough if the product is fully functional with a free (FREE) OS, which is one of 2 or 3 boot options?

We are talking about just the hardware in the end here, right?

It shouldn't matter at all for the hardware-classification if there is official support for closed software or not. I could understand that there is a requirement that it comes with a free OS option, and I can even see requirement for a second FREE repo on top of that.

But that should be it.

Official videos of non-free software running on the device to attract more customers, or official support for the full repo (thus giving everyone the freedom to choose for themselves) should not play any role here.

I think most people fear that everything which does not comply with the FSF requirements will end up in a speakeasy-repo, and in the end there is a FSF-compatible facade, but the vast majority of the community will be in the underground, where the moonshine-developers produce bottom-shelf software for the masses.

This would not be in the interest of the community or the FSF, though(?)

 

[WizardStan]

Is it enough if the product is fully functional with a free (FREE) OS, which is one of 2 or 3 boot options?

It cannot ship with non-free software and all advertised features of the hardware must be possible with free software. OPT also wouldn't be allowed to "recommend" non-free software, as that would basically be advertising a feature that can't be accomplished without that free software. There is nothing in the requirement that would restrict them from putting non-free upgrades that may work better, provided they don't advertise it doing things that the original free version couldn't do.Free OS is slow, non-free OS is fast: this is ok.

Free OS can't do 3D games, non-free OS can do 3D games: this is not ok.

I think most people fear that everything which does not comply with the FSF requirements will end up in a speakeasy-repo

There is absolutely nothing in the certification requirement that would even remotely suggest that this would be required. And even if it did, if the rules for certification changed, we would be free to drop the certification as soon as it was no longer convenient. And really, if that were to happen it wouldn't be us dropping certification, it would be them: we maintain consistency with our goals which, sadly, would no longer be compatible with the RYF certification. If anyone tried to start a flamewar that we "lost" certification I'd simply point out that we didn't change, we are the exact same as when we first got the certification, it was the certification that changed, and blaming us for them changing the rules mid-game is entirely unfair and hypocritical.

 

[_wb_]

I have to say I'm with those saying to aim to make the hardware match the certification,  but not actually apply for it.  

I think it makes a lot of sense to make and distribute the product with only free software, and even to provide pointers to free alternatives to non-free software where possible.   However  part of the requirements for the certification restrict the freedom of the seller to recommend non-free software if they feel it worthwhile without losing the certification.  This is not a freedom I'd be willing to give up.

- Neelix

OK, let's break things down a bit for clarity.

• The hardware should be as Free as possible (meaning we avoid binary blob stuff if possible): I think everyone is in favor of this.
• The software that gets shipped with the hardware should be 100% Free: I think most people are in favor of this too; this is what we already do with the current Pandora except for those one or two blobs
• The software that the hardware vendor "recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product.": I think it is crucial to think about how this phrase should be interpreted; this is one of the questions that would need to be answered by the FSF before we can seriously consider applying for the certification.

If having something on our repo server means ED "recommends" the software on it, or "steers users towards installation", then I think most people here would consider that a too strong limitation to impose upon ourselves. If making YouTube videos showing footage of non-free software running on the Pandora successor also counts as a "recommendation", then I suspect that most people here would consider that to be too much of a restriction too.

Clearly there is some kind of spectrum of what constitutes a "recommendation", and it would be necessary to make it much more clear-cut where to draw the line. We would have to contact the FSF to discuss this line before applying for the certification.

For example, I think we can agree that if the "first boot wizard" script would automatically or with one simple click start downloading a bunch of non-free software, then that would be an unacceptable form of "steering towards installation". Also, if all advertisement (website, cardboard box, YouTube movies, KickStarter page etc) would solely or mostly focus on how you can use the hardware to run non-free software, then I think it would be hypocrisy to apply for the RYF certification and the FSF would be justified to retract the certificate.

Their guidelines say:

By way of explanation, a general-purpose facility for installing other programs, with which the choice of programs to install comes directly from the user, is not considered to steer users toward anything in particular. However, the product suggests using the facility to install certain programs, that is steering users towards those programs.

from which I deduce that it would not be a problem to have non-free software on the repo and have something like PNDManager shipped with the units, as long as it doesn't do things like pop up dialogs suggesting particular non-free software, e.g. "I detected NDS roms on your SD card, would you like to download DraStic now?"

Their guidelines also say:

Companies awarded RYF certification for a given product, must not distribute any product-related materials with endorsements or badges to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges, because these would give an appearance of legitimacy to those proprietary packages, and may make users think the product requires them. However, we don't object to clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works with specific proprietary operating systems.

from which I deduce it's not a problem to put claims like "Runs DraStic full-speed" or "You can install Android/Windows 8/iOS/whatever on it" on the website or on the cardboard box or wherever. As long as we don't give the impression that such non-free software is required to use the hardware.

So given the above, I think it should be possible to establish definitions of "recommends", "endorses", and "steers towards" that are acceptable both to us and to the FSF.

 

[WizardStan]

However part of the requirements for the certification restrict the freedom of the seller to recommend non-free software if they feel it worthwhile without losing the certification.

Ok, I've thought about this and that's a really really good point. It's one thing to say "ok, fine, they can't advertise any of the non-free games" which is thankfully a short list next to the huge collection of free stuff, but in the event that Valve does release a closed ARM port of Steam with games which the P2 could run it would be a shame to not be able to say "runs Steam". We could drop the certification and I would be entirely ok with that (as would almost everyone, I'm sure) and I would find lots of ways to defend the decision but assuming the certification did actually accomplish something positive then the change would be entirely on us and anyone that supported it for the certification could rightfully feel betrayed. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being complicit in that betrayal. Have I actually interpreted this requirement correctly? Is it the case that OPT would be forbidden from advertising it as being able to run ARM Steam and associated games (should such a thing ever appear)? Or would that be considered some kind of "additional feature", not core to the experience and therefore not bound by the same restriction?
Incidentally, I think I said that they wouldn't be able to advertise DS emulation. That was wrong: there is a free DS emulator that "works" on the Pandora, and that's all that's required for the certification. The user is free to select whichever emulator they want, the free and slow one or the fast and closed one. Wouldn't be able to advertise DraStic explicitly though, but that's nuance.

 

[Grench]

OK, let's break things down a bit for clarity.

• The hardware should be as Free as possible (meaning we avoid binary blob stuff if possible): I think everyone is in favor of this.
• The software that gets shipped with the hardware should be 100% Free: I think most people are in favor of this too; this is what we already do with the current Pandora except for those one or two blobs
• The software that the hardware vendor "recommends for use in conjunction with the product, or steers users towards installation in the product.": I think it is crucial to think about how this phrase should be interpreted; this is one of the questions that would need to be answered by the FSF before we can seriously consider applying for the certification.

Hardware free as possible without having to compromise it (slower, more expensive, less features, etc...) in a bow and kiss to the feet of some 3rd party organization.  Check - but ONLY if we don't give up performance and capabilities to get there.

Requiring software to be 100% free - no.  As with the hardware, if we restrict ourselves to only software that 'qualifies' under some 3rd party's free/nonfree standard it could mean passing up -better- options.  I'd like to see the next unit have Debian or a derivative (Ubuntu?  Mint?) with full repository access.  It has been stated above that Debian does not meet their definition of 'free'.  Which obscure OS does meet it?  What OS and repository has had the FSF clergy's blessing?  Please don't tell me you want to stick with Angstrom - we can do much better than that.

DraStic was built by a member of our community.  It's being sold at a reasonable/cheap rate for the effort involved in creation.  I think we should ENCOURAGE this type of development and commerce.  The FSF requirements would have us SHUN our very few developers even if they choose to charge less than a fast food dinner for their services.

Not advertise it?  Heck - I'd make it something in a giant font on the front of the box:  "Open and unsubsidized computer system.  No contracts or subscriptions required.  Tons of free software.  No in-app advertising.  Developers who choose to charge for their products get 95% of store listed prices - store gets 5% for maintenance."  (made that part up - I have no idea what if any split there is currently.)

Encourage commercial and free software in a collective and competitive environment.  It worked for Amazon, Google, etc...

 

[Binky]

^ quote++

--

Developers who choose to charge for their products get 95% of store listed prices - store gets 5% for maintenance." 

I believe its more like:

Developer: 97%

Paypal 3%

Shop 0%

 

[WizardStan]

I'd like to see the next unit have Debian or a derivative (Ubuntu?  Mint?) with full repository access.

There's nothing in the requirements that would prevent Debian from being installed as default on a P2 exactly as it is.

It has been stated above that Debian does not meet their definition of 'free'.

It may not meet the requirements of software freedom but it doesn't have to, it's good enough for the hardware certification.

The FSF requirements would have us SHUN our very few developers even if they choose to charge less than a fast food dinner for their services.

Where does it say that? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There is nothing in the requirements that would force us to shun them. DraStic can be served alongside everything else.

Not advertise it?  Heck - I'd make it something in a giant font on the front of the box:  "Open and unsubsidized computer system.  No contracts or subscriptions required.  Tons of free software.  No in-app advertising.  Developers who choose to charge for their products get 95% of store listed prices - store gets 5% for maintenance."  (made that part up - I have no idea what if any split there is currently.) 

Encourage commercial and free software in a collective and competitive environment.  It worked for Amazon, Google, etc...

Which is entirely allowed by the certification. What's the problem?

 

[Binky]

Would things like the "most downloaded" and "highest rated" charts on the repo count as recommending non-free software?

 

[Neelix]

Would things like the "most downloaded" and "highest rated" charts on the repo count as recommending non-free software?

I've thought about that.  The conclusion I came to is that it probably wouldn't, because they are community recommendations not a seller recommendation.

- Neelix

 

[_wb_]

Would things like the "most downloaded" and "highest rated" charts on the repo count as recommending non-free software?

I would assume the answer is no, because "most downloaded" and "highest rated" indicate some kind of community popularity, which is not the same as official vendor recommendation.

By the way, on a side note: the FSF does not object to charging money for software, they only object to non-free software. So it would for example be perfectly possible for Exophase to license DraStic under the GPL while charging $8 for it on the repo - it wouldn't prevent others from copying the program and its source without paying him anything (that would be legal if it were GPL licensed), but the difference in terms of how much Exophase would earn would be quite small: people who want to support him will still pay, and people who want to use his software but don't want to pay would still not pay (only difference would be that if it is GPL'ed, they wouldn't commit a crime by making that copy).

Hardware free as possible without having to compromise it (slower, more expensive, less features, etc...) in a bow and kiss to the feet of some 3rd party organization.  Check - but ONLY if we don't give up performance and capabilities to get there.

I think there's a trade-off to be made. I would prefer a GPU with a FOSS driver over one with only a binary blob, even if the "freed" GPU is 5% slower than the non-free one (but still a zillion times better than the current Pandora GPU). I would be tempted by a non-free GPU if it is an order of magnitude faster than any "freed" one - but I don't think that is the current situation.

In other words: I would not be prepared to sacrifice freedom for just a small difference in performance (so in that sense I would make a small compromise in raw specs to get more freedom). Just like I would not be prepared to pay twice as much for the device just to get a 1% increase in cpu speed.

 

[Grench]

Above someone said that DraStic would be allowed, but only because there is a free program that does the same thing - maybe not as well.  Huh???  We should be encouraging developers to fill niches that aren't already filled with free offerings, not excluding them because there isn't a free equivalent.

I'd like to see the next unit have Debian or a derivative (Ubuntu?  Mint?) with full repository access.

There's nothing in the requirements that would prevent Debian from being installed as default on a P2 exactly as it is.

It has been stated above that Debian does not meet their definition of 'free'.

It may not meet the requirements of software freedom but it doesn't have to, it's good enough for the hardware certification.
 

The FSF requirements would have us SHUN our very few developers even if they choose to charge less than a fast food dinner for their services.

Where does it say that? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There is nothing in the requirements that would force us to shun them. DraStic can be served alongside everything else.
 

Not advertise it?  Heck - I'd make it something in a giant font on the front of the box:  "Open and unsubsidized computer system.  No contracts or subscriptions required.  Tons of free software.  No in-app advertising.  Developers who choose to charge for their products get 95% of store listed prices - store gets 5% for maintenance."  (made that part up - I have no idea what if any split there is currently.) 
Encourage commercial and free software in a collective and competitive environment.  It worked for Amazon, Google, etc...

Which is entirely allowed by the certification. What's the problem?

_wb_'s statement above that the software should be 100% free.  Meaning certified free by the FSF - who does not grant their blessing to Debian - meaning that in order to have Debian we would have to have a 2nd equally promoted and supported OS that meets their 'standards'.

The hardware certification does not stand in a vacuum.  The entire point is to be able to use the hardware via free software - and Debian, despite being free to you and me does not meet their standards of 'free'.

From Google:

shun


SHən


verb

 

1. 
   1.
   
   
   persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.
   
    
   
   "he shunned fashionable society"
   
   
   
   synonyms:
   
   avoid, evade, eschew, steer clear of, shy away from, fight shy of, keep one's distance from, give a wide berth to, have nothing to do with;
   
   
   
   

Paid software without a non-paid alternative would not be allowed to be presented.  At the time I had no idea that there was a functioning free DS emulator.  Not being allowed to advertise or recommend DraStic is a form of shunning it if it deserves the attention.

How do you figure that an open marketplace is allowed when anything without a free equivalent has to be left out?

 

[ZXDunny]

I believe its more like:

Developer: 97%

Paypal 3%

Shop 0%

ED gets 40% of my profits. Anything else would be insulting, imo.

D.

 

[WizardStan]

_wb_'s statement above that the software should be 100% free.  Meaning certified free by the FSF - who does not grant their blessing to Debian - meaning that in order to have Debian we would have to have a 2nd equally promoted and supported OS that meets their 'standards'.

You're confusing a free distro with free software and free hardware. Debian is a distro. It contains free software but in order to be a free distro it also has other requirements. A P2 would similarly require free software and have other requirements. The free distro and free hardware certifications overlap only on the software. We can take the software, which is free, and use it without worrying about whether the distro passes the requirements to be considered free. Debian is considered free software, it is not considered a free distro. The hardware certification requires free software, it does not require a free distro. The certification in fact explicitly states that having non-free software along side free software is entirely permissible, which is the very thing that makes Debian a non-free distro.

Paid software without a non-paid alternative would not be allowed to be presented.  At the time I had no idea that there was a functioning free DS emulator.  Not being allowed to advertise or recommend DraStic is a form of shunning it if it deserves the attention.

As has been stated several times, the certification explicitly says that non-free (whether freeware or for pay) can exist along side free (completely gratis or also for pay) can exist along side each other, the requirement is that the non-free software cannot be necessary for the operation of the device. If it is general purpose software and optional and the user can make the choice themselves as to whether or not to install it then there is no problem. And even that "cannot advertise DraStic" might not be correct, since it explicitly says

However, we don't object to clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works with specific proprietary operating systems.

Which one could arguably twist to be able to say, factually, "able to run DraStic, the award winning DS emulator".

How do you figure that an open marketplace is allowed when anything without a free equivalent has to be left out?

Because it doesn't.

 

[comradekingu]

A free marketplace requires all components to be free. It makes sense in economic theory to describe such a thing as free market. A closed source component is a monopoly on free duplication.

_wb_'s statement above that the software should be 100% free.  Meaning certified free by the FSF

Debian is 100% free, it does differ in some ways from FSF-free.

I've asked a gnewsense dev about this, and he said to me "A user readable list on the wiki of differences between Debian and us is still on my todo list." (gnewsense wiki)

TL;DR The difference between Free and FSF-free is minimal, and in practice for the pandora negligible.

At any point in time there is effort to "fix" the main repo in debian, keeping it free, and their stance on areas where there could be problems is to remove it first. Which is about the same i guess. Second is the ability to load firmware for non-free hardware. It requires a modified kernel. Which would be a problem in real life only if you want to use your firmware-blob wireless usb adapter. Which you could discuss the necessity or convenience of once the internal one works.

Then its things like ndiswrapper, which is for using the windows driver for wireless cards if there isnt a linux one. This is so reactionary in this day and age its not much of a ask for someone to git pull the sourcecode and build it themselves if there is a use for it.

Then there are programs that have non-free plugins. That isnt allowed. There is the technical side of this where GPLv2 differs from GLPv3, and what is dynamic linking and what isnt. In practice the problem is very limited, i dont know that its a "real" problem anywhere.

TL;DR2 In essence debian has these abilities because it needs to meet the requirements for a vast ecosystem of hardware, a pandora is a very specific device and usecase so its easier to tailor the OS to meet these requirements.

I think FSF has some kind of clause of self hosting too, to absolutely limit the power to restrict. That seems paranoid, but in effect things like sourceforge has in the past agreed to american laws of limiting software to their "enemies" which is cuba, iran, north korea and some others.

Some years ago i read the ventrilo (or was it teamspeak) silence and it basically makes it a crime to have it installed and then travel to cuba with your laptop.

PS: Im no lawyer, this is my understanding of things and loosely based on memory.