Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one?

[Bob Ham]

On 2013-02-20 01:46, MJ Ray wrote:
> Bob Ham <address@hidden>
> > On 2013-02-19 13:50, MJ Ray wrote:

> it's not clear who controls trisquel.  It sells some "associate
> memberships" on its website which do not seem to give you membership
> of the association - and the sale does not seem to reveal the full
> details of the association, which I thought was required under
> directive 97/7/EC.  Where is it?  Who are its members?

I don't have answers to these questions I'm afraid.  There is some 
information about the people involved here:

  http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-team

If you seek more detailed answers about the organisation and its 
finances, the main developer is Ruben Rodriguez <address@hidden> 
and I'm sure he'll answer questions.


> Even at a quick look, I spotted one false-positive: 9wm.

If the 9wm package is not free software then this is a bug.  You can 
notify the Trisquel developers by filing a bug report and they will 
remove the package.


> > if a system contains hardware whose
> > manufacturer doesn't respect users' freedoms, should the installer
> > encourage users to install freedom-denying firmware?
>
> No, which is why debian-installer doesn't encourage it.  As far as I
> saw, it simply states "Some of your hardware needs non-free firmware
> files to operate. The firmware can be loaded from removable media,
> such as a USB stick or floppy."
>
> That's a fact and I don't see who it would help to conceal it.

I want a free software operating system.  I do not want to be made 
aware of non-free software.  I want my operating system to respect the 
boundary that exists between freedom and non-free restrictions.  I do 
not want my computer to mention non-free software to me.  I do not want 
my computer to spend its CPU time, hard disk space or network capacity 
considering the possibility that non-free software or firmware exists 
that could work with that computer.

Free software is, by definition, distinct from proprietary software.  I 
do not want to suffer in the choking world of proprietary software, I 
want to bathe in sun of freedom.  I may be aware that the choking world 
exists, I may even consider its existence and what to do about it but I 
don't want to be reminded of it and I certainly don't want an invitation 
to it from my operating system.

To me, a free software operating system is one whose boundaries do not 
cross the border between the choking world of proprietary software and 
the sunny world of free software.  I see a free software OS's boundaries 
as being completely contained within the sunny world of free software.  
This idea is given form in the FSF's Guidelines for Free System 
Distributions:

  http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html


This is what I want.  There are others who don't want this; some want 
an operating system that will offer an invitation to the world of 
proprietary software in order to make $hardware work.  Some are happy to 
accept that invitation.

If an installer does not offer the possibility of installing some 
non-free firmware, is it "concealing" that non-free firmware from the 
user?  Or is it respecting the user's desire to not be offered an 
invitation to the choking world of proprietary software?


--
Bob Ham <address@hidden>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }