[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Timothy Musson]

Nick Rout wrote:
> Timothy Musson wrote:
> >Let's start with the CLUG.
> >The CLUG isn't a Free Software user group. Most of the people there
> >don't have ethical problems promoting and supporting proprietary
> >software, even when Free alternatives exist. Now, I'm not complaining -
> >I happen to think that CLUG is a fantastic resource. I'm just saying
> >that CLUG has no interest in Free Software philosophy.

> I think you confuse the collection of individuals with being a group 
> with one combining philosophy. There are undoubtedly as many views on 
> software freedom/open-ness as there are subscribers to the CLUG list.

I don't think I'm confused (...well, I could be _very_ confused ;^)

I do respect the fact that CLUG is made up of a couple of hundred
people, each with different views, and that the CLUG as a whole doesn't
have any particular agenda.

I really just wanted to contrast that with GNUz, which does have a Free
Software slant.

 
> Also many people (in CLUG and elsewhere) don't regard freedom of 
> software as a moral imperative, they see it as a bonus in getting their 
> computer to work. If the hardware is open and the driver is free, there 
> is more chance of keeping it working in 1, 5 or 50 years from now.

Sure, I understand.

 
> >Now to GLU/GNUz.
> >[...] But assuming we are a Free Software group, rather than an
> >alternative CLUG: How can it be appropriate for us to recommend,
> >distribute and support proprietary software in any way?
> >We recommend and support Ubuntu[1], which includes non-Free software.
> >We help folks install binary-only drivers (wireless, video, ...)
> >We help folks set up win32 codecs, flash, etc.
> >If we can find excuses to do those things, what differentiates us
> >from the CLUG?  Instead, why don't we...

> >Consider Free alternatives to Ubuntu (gNewSense, Fedora, others?)
> >Help folks select and track-down decent hardware.
 
> These are good points, but I think hard to reconcile with a desire to 
> get more people using GNU/Linux.

But I'm speaking as a Free Software advocate. That is, someone who
basically agrees with the FSF's philosophy. The FSF's goal isn't to
get more people using Free Software. Sure, the more the merrier, but
numbers are beside the point.

The FSF's basic point is that Free Software ought to be available for
people who wish to use it. Practically (the software has to be written)
and legally (it's necessary to fight laws that threaten Free Software).

According to the FSF, non-Free software is unethical. Using non-Free
software to boost the popularity of Free Software isn't the way to go.

For groups with different goals, the includion of non-Free software
isn't such a big issue. (For example, the Open Source movement prefers
Free Software, but they're not ethically opposed to non-Free software.
So you get folks like Linus and ESR, who identify with Open Source, and
both of them are completely okay about non-Free software. Which is
absolutely their right, but I don't share their views.)

Here's a quote from RMS:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html

<quote>
>From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved
version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom."
We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free,
but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they
appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside
their proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's
freedom more than an irrelevant form of popularity.
</quote>


> The point being that the fence sitters still want stuff that "just
> works" - yes including their atheros wireless cards, and their
> ATi/nVidia network cards.

The best we can do is try to explain the problems with non-Free
software, help people research hardware that works with Free Software,
and try to persuade manufacturers to provide info to Free Software
developers.

If people really insist on non-Free software, there are people on the
CLUG list and elsewhere who are happy to help.


> So do you push "freedom purity" at the expense of bringing large numbers 
> of people on board?

Well, yes. Numbers were never the FSF's goal.
But we can at least try to educate people about the issues. Some of them
will "get" it.


> If we push purity to the point where it puts a lot of people off
> (either because they think we are deranged fringe nutters, or simply
> because stuff doesn't work) does that help persuade the
> atheros/ATi/nVidia people that theres a big enough market to cater to?

Yes, that's a really hard issue to deal with. I don't have a good
response right now.

One thing I was thinking about though. Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth has
said that their plan is to include nVidia and ATI's proprietary drivers
with future versions of Ubuntu, in order to attract more users by making
things more convenient. Then, once they have a critical mass of users,
he intends to put pressure on nVidia and ATI to free up those drivers.
Which sounds reasonable. But it left me wondering: where's that pressure
going to come from, if all those Ubuntu users are so happy with their
convenient binary drivers? Most of them will never have heard of Free
Software. They're not going to care.


> These are difficult questions, and worthy of debate.

> >[1] Rik, there's no doubt that Ubuntu includes non-Free software, and
> >    intends to include more in future. To "opt out", you need to pick a
> >    GNU/Linux distro that does gymnastics to compile a truly free Linux
> >    kernel. Ubuntu doesn't do that.
 
> I asked on the CLUG list earlier this week if Rik's support of ubuntu 
> arose out of whether it refused to install non-free software by default 
> (at that time I thought it didn't install anything non-free by default 
> and that you had to go out and install it if you wanted it. However on 
> watching a newly installed ubuntu box boot last night it clearly says 
> "loading restricted drivers" - so now I am not so sure.

Even my beloved Debian includes non-Free parts in its Linux kernel.
Though, they do seem to want to fix that. Here's an interesting thread
on the debian-kernel mailing list:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/01/msg00241.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/01/msg00243.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/01/msg00246.html


Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz