@kaia >this post is entirely proprietary Disgusting
>I own the copyright to it Copyright is held and not owned.
>repeating this post means duplicating it and might be illegal in your country. Merely the act of duplication doesn't infringe copyright - only the forbidden kinds of sharing of that copy.
>reading this post might be illegal in your country and infringe on my copyright. No, reading or looking at, or watching something isn't copyright infringement.
As you've made your post publicly available, you've given permission to everyone to read it.
@grillchen Trisquel doesn't contain or recommend proprietary software in either the repos or the documentation. You you have the freedom to install proprietary software in Trisquel, but that's kind of the same freedom as the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot - clearly it's wise not to do that.
Gentoo recommends proprietary software in the install guide, in the documentation and contains many ebuilds that install proprietary software Although portage has the ACCEPT_LICENSE feature, the default "@FREE" accepts all licenses approved by the FSF and the "Open Source Initiative", which ends up accepting the numerous proprietary software licenses the "OSI" has approved. At least 1/4 of the packages also have the wrong license listed - even GNU software where the license is a short --version or --license away or clearly documented on the project website.
It's possible to use Gentoo and retain your freedom, but you need to fight for it - as the developers keep trying to take it off you.
@grillchen@kaia@maksim >it is one of the dumbest reasonings ever Depends on your view. Trisquel will not stop user from installing proprietary software because that would be a violation of their freedom. However it is also immoral to have software to have bits that already have non-free/libre software in them or have a script, a simple method that will automatically download/install proprietary software.
>I want a system to empower me and not give me limitations But distributions like trisquel does empower you. If people want to install proprietary software they have to do it from their own will and consciousness, unlike today with ubuntu for example where even if you select to not use proprietary bits on installation it does it anyway. Empowering in computers doesn't mean to make it easy, it means to understand what you are doing.
But I will admit that we need more pedagogical content, no matter what distribution.
Plus I'll note that having such distro like Trisquel permits to have a more accurate vision of the situation of the free/libre software ecosystem and know which manufacturers and software are more or less evil.
@maksim >What it means is that Trisquel restricts access to non-free stuff (dictatorship) No, simply deciding not to host malware in a package repo doesn't mean restrictions.
A restriction of access to nonfree software would be if the package manager was to refuse to allow you to add 3rd party package repos or deny to install proprietary packages - which isn't the case, as you can add any correctly setup repo you want to Trisquel and the package manager will try to install any .deb you give to it.
@mangeurdenuage@grillchen@kaia I think that's the right time to share my funny idea. Freedom by Dictatorship. That applies for Trisquel (as an example). What it means is that Trisquel restricts access to non-free stuff (dictatorship) but that gives you freedom (no proprietary stuff)
The mere existence or absence of packages in a package repository is a completely different thing to a restriction.
For example, lets say you want to edit a file with GNU ed.
For the purposes of the example, GNU ed isn't in the main repository for Trisquel, but lets say it happens to be in a 3rd party repository.
You would like to edit a file with the standard editor, but such software not isn't in the main repository, so you can't just run apt install ed - isn't that a restriction?
The answer is no, as there's nothing restricting you from enabling the 3rd party repository and installing GNU ed, or downloading GNU ed's source and compiling it.
You seem to be confusing a perceived lack of convenience for restrictions.
@maksim >the devs restrict the main repository from proprietary software I only remembered this point now, so I'll make it. The Trisquel developers are not restricting such software - the proprietary software developers are the ones who have made a decision to restrict their software from being acceptable to use.
'But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot “bring them into our community” if they don't want to join.' - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
@Suiseiseki But the devs restrict the main repository from proprietary software, and it can't be added to the main ones, it's a restriction, a good one and yeah I get what you mean, I told the whole thing just cuz this concept is pretty funny and I found a place to share it with people