[Nix-dev] Re: Separating free and non-free packages, again

[Tony White]

2009/11/24 Sander van der Burg - EWI <S.vanderBurg at tudelft.nl>:

> There is a different reason why Firefox isn't free software. Firefox
> includes proprietary branding which can't be used under the free software
> definition and in the past it also included a non-free crash reporter.
> That's the reason why IceCat is created.
>

Hi all,
Hmm, debian iceweasel was created for that reason. gnu iceweasel (Now
named icecat to avoid confusion) Was created to remove the proprietary
branding and to remove the software plugin repos, in order to offer
libre plugin repos by default. The mpl will have been a factor in the
decision about the plugins because the mpl and gpl are incompatible.

I'm not here for argument either, I'd just like to see the definition clear.

2009/11/24 Ludovic Courtès <ludo at gnu.org>:
> Hi,
>
> Tony White <tonywhite100 at googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> That means that it is a free software license but in nixpkgs it should
>> be classified as non-free because a module covered by the GPL and a
>> module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together.
>
> As long as it’s a free software license, it qualifies (to me) as, well,
> free.
>
> Ludo’.
>

That's cool but I think that following the gnu guidelines and ideas of
freedom strictly is how to get nixos classified as a gnu distribution
like gnewsense is.
It has to be strict if you guys want the classification. See here :
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
and here for the pitfalls :
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
So if you want nixos added here :
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
The non-free stuff has got to be forked away and hosted somewhere else
and the kernel's firmware blobs need to be removed.
(Put non-free nixpkgs on gitorious and move to git would be the best way IMO.)

But I actually thought that gnu endorsement was an objective? Sure
it's possible but is it worth it?
If the separation of free and non-free is exactly just about the
separation, for whatever purpose that may serve and not about getting
nixos gnu approved, then is it OK to assume that gnu endorsement is no
longer an objective or it's just unimportant at this time?

If as Ludo says, that policy for nixpkgs non-free, isn't strict gnu,
using Firefox as the example as being "Free," Then isn't the
definition of free being used here closer to the open source
definition instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition
Which is nearly identical to the debian free software guidelines :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines

Thanks,
Tony