4 ms·

I specifically don't understand it when it comes to Linux distros. You can be labelled as "non-free" simply for having non-free packages available to download,

I specifically don't understand it when it comes to Linux distros. You can be labelled as "non-free" simply for having non-free packages available to download, even if they're clearly marked as such and it's easy to put an installation in free-only mode. > would rather see them fail than succeed on non-FSF terms I went to a presentation by RMS at a local university a few years ago, and this is almost exactly what he said - even when a questioner applied it to cases like charities and orphanages that might theoretically rely on Windows-only software to do their work. If it's not 100% FSF pure, it's evil, end of discussion, damn the consequences.

steveklabnik 13y ago
> it's easy to put an installation in free-only mode Can you give me an example of this? I wasn't aware there was something easy, but that's just pure ignorance. Let's say Debian.
- zhemao 13y ago
  Debian and related distros, such as Ubuntu, usually separate open source and proprietary packages into different repositories. If you only want open-source licensed software, just deselect the proprietary repositories. Now, the only problem with that is that the Linux kernel itself has some binary blobs, pre-compiled code where the original source code is unknown, so that makes any Linux distro using the standard kernel less than free by the FSF's standards. There is a Linux-libre kernel which replaces all the binary blobs, but so far only a few distros use it.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Cool, thanks. I'm currently on Crunchbang, been thinking about switching to stock Debian for exactly this reason. It's been a while since I used it straight-up, and didn't remember it being two sources.
    - zhemao 13y ago
      Wait, does Crunchbang not separate free and non-free? I've never used it, but I was under the impression that Crunchbang used mostly packages from the upstream Debian repos. You should just be able to select or deselect sources by editing the /etc/apt/sources.list file.

steveklabnik 13y ago

> it's easy to put an installation in free-only mode Can you give me an example of this? I wasn't aware there was something easy, but that's just pure ignorance. Let's say Debian.

zhemao 13y ago
Debian and related distros, such as Ubuntu, usually separate open source and proprietary packages into different repositories. If you only want open-source licensed software, just deselect the proprietary repositories. Now, the only problem with that is that the Linux kernel itself has some binary blobs, pre-compiled code where the original source code is unknown, so that makes any Linux distro using the standard kernel less than free by the FSF's standards. There is a Linux-libre kernel which replaces all the binary blobs, but so far only a few distros use it.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Cool, thanks. I'm currently on Crunchbang, been thinking about switching to stock Debian for exactly this reason. It's been a while since I used it straight-up, and didn't remember it being two sources.
  - zhemao 13y ago
    Wait, does Crunchbang not separate free and non-free? I've never used it, but I was under the impression that Crunchbang used mostly packages from the upstream Debian repos. You should just be able to select or deselect sources by editing the /etc/apt/sources.list file.