Qubes Debian templates have non-free/contrib (apt) by default

adrelanos · July 5, 2024, 4:44pm

Debian official image nowadays includes non-freedom firmware.

The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.

Source: General Resolution: non-free firmware

The winners
Option 5 “Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer”

Source: General Resolution: non-free firmware

Note: SC stands for the Debian Social Contract.

Other sources stating the same:

Quote https://www.debian.org/

Debian is a complete Free Operating System!

Will you criticize Debian too and/or suggest a rewording of their homepage?

adw:

“Qubes OS is a free and open-source security-oriented operating system…”

How exactly is this not accurate? So far, I’ve seen several people in this thread say they agree that the statement isn’t accurate, but I haven’t seen anyone actually explain why they believe that. It obviously depends on how you define terms like “free” and “open-source.” The dispute seems to center on the term “free.” It’s clear that Debian, Fedora, and Qubes are not free (as in speech, aka libre) software according to some very restrictive definitions of “free” (namely, the FSF’s), but to claim that the statement in question is “inaccurate” seems to imply that Qubes is not free according to any common reasonable definition of free software, which sounds quite dubious to me. I’d like to hear a proper argument for that claim.

This is such a messy, confusing and geeky topic. I understand everyone’s point.

One of the biggest failures of the Open Source / Free Software movement is the terminology.

Open Source means OSI certified licenses for source code and binaries.
Free Software means FSF certified licences for soruce code and binaries.

Both terms are bad. Source code with a non-commercial clause that is available for non-commercial, review, modification, build must be called a “source-available license”. Quite a difficult and unpopular phrase. Using “open source” without the capical letters would also get criticized.

(This is just an example. I do not want to imply to push non-commercial licenses.)

I’ve met probably thousands of people in my life but it seems I am active in a tiny subculture. For “99%” of non-technical people I am talking to in real life, for them “Free Software” is understood as “free in price”. The capitalization does not make them perform a web search and look up the FSF definition either. However, on the internet I can find spirited discussions on the topic as if it is a huge deal, which it unfortunately, is not.

Hence people came up with other terms such as Libre Software, FOSS, FLOSS. Another suggestion Let's call it Freedom Software rather than Free Software or Open Source! - News - Whonix Forum has been made by me.

So what Qubes could do is say “we’re using the word free as understood by “99%” of non-technical people”? I mean, which word could Qubes legitimately use to imply it is free in price if not free? freeware, I guess, but that term will be misunderstood too by some because also defined differently.

It seems that a minority attempted to hijack the term “free” to mean “freedom” and so far failed with that.

Adding a gigantic footnote to the homepage, confuse, deter the majority of new users who have never heard about this controversy seems also wrong.

Even the FAQ might be the wrong place for extensive information on the topic? A short entry, OK but link to another dedicated page? The FAQ should contain frequently asked questions. Is this really frequently asked or was this rather added to the FAQ out of “convenience”? If not a FAQ, such type of design decisions / ideology would be better documented on a dedicated page?