mirror of
https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject.git
synced 2024-12-26 21:30:55 +08:00
Merge branch 'LCTT:master' into master
This commit is contained in:
Peter Pan
GitHub
commit
6b14ea5e95
@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
|
||||
[#]: subject: "FSF Does Not Accept Debian as a Free Distribution. Here’s Why!"
|
||||
[#]: via: "https://news.itsfoss.com/fsf-does-not-consider-debian-a-free-distribution/"
|
||||
[#]: author: "Abhishek https://news.itsfoss.com/author/root/"
|
||||
[#]: collector: "lkxed"
|
||||
[#]: translator: "Chao-zhi"
|
||||
[#]: reviewer: " "
|
||||
[#]: publisher: " "
|
||||
[#]: url: " "
|
||||
|
||||
FSF Does Not Accept Debian as a Free Distribution. Here’s Why!
|
||||
======
|
||||
![Why FSF doesn't consider Debian a free distribution][1]
|
||||
|
||||
The Debian Project develops a free GNU/Linux distribution that respects the freedom of its users. It’s not uncommon for software, the source code of which is distributed under this or that free license, to contain non-free components. In this case, the software is cleaned before being released into Debian. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), in turn, maintains a [list of free GNU/Linux distributions][2], but oddly enough, Debian is not there. The fact is that Debian does not meet some criteria for getting on this list and we have to figure out which ones. But first, you need to understand how all this intellectual work is justified. In other words, why bother trying to get on some lists and this one in particular?
|
||||
|
||||
Stefano Zacchiroli, who used to be the leader of the Debian Project from 2010 to 2013, once voiced several reasons why Debian should have got the FSF to obtain the status of free distribution. One of these reasons, which Stefano called “external review”, I especially liked. The fact is that Debian has criteria and quality standards that software must meet to become part of the distribution, but no one except the Debian developers themselves controls this process. If the distribution had been included in that cherished list, the FSF would have been keeping a close eye on the fate of Debian with moderate criticism. Excellent motivation, I believe. If you also think so, then let’s now have a look at the reasons why the FSF considers Debian as not free enough.
|
||||
|
||||
### Debian Social Contract
|
||||
|
||||
Along with the list of free GNU/Linux distributions, the FSF maintains a list of GNU/Linux distributions that have been rejected a free status for one reason or another. For each distribution in this list, there is a comment with a brief argument for refusal. From the comment on Debian, it becomes clear that the main source of disagreement between the FSF and the Debian Project in the interpretation of the phrase “free distribution” is a document known as the Debian Social Contract.
|
||||
|
||||
The Debian Social Contract has five points. To answer the main question, we need only two of them – the first and the fifth, so they will be given below, and the others are omitted. Check out the full version of the contract [here][3].
|
||||
|
||||
The first point says: «**Debian will remain 100% free**. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is “free” in the document entitled “The Debian Free Software Guidelines”. We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.»
|
||||
|
||||
At the same time, the fifth point reads: «**Works that do not meet our free software standards**. We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created “contrib” and “non-free” areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).»
|
||||
|
||||
Although the contract states that the distribution will remain 100% free, it allows sections of the official archive that may contain non-free software or free software that depends on some non-free components. Formally, the software in these sections, according to the same contract, is not part of Debian, but the FSF is haunted by this since these sections make it much easier to install non-free software on a system.
|
||||
|
||||
Until 2011, the FSF had reasonable grounds not to consider Debian free – the distribution was shipped with a Linux kernel uncleaned from binary blobs. But since the February 2011 release of Squeeze to this day, Debian has included the free Linux kernel. Thus, simplifying the installation of non-free software is the main reason why the FSF cannot recognize Debian as free distribution, and until 2016 this was the only reason I knew, but in early 2016 something went wrong…
|
||||
|
||||
### Wait… what’s Firefox doing here?
|
||||
|
||||
For a long time, Debian included a browser called Iceweasel, which was nothing more than a rebrand of the Firefox browser. The rebranding was carried out for two reasons. First, the browser logo and name are trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation, and the provision of non-free software contradicts the DFSG. Second, by including the browser in the distribution, the Debian developers had to comply with the requirements of the Mozilla Foundation, which prohibits the delivery of a modified version of the browser under the name Firefox. Thus, the developers had to change the name, because they constantly make changes to the browser code to fix bugs and eliminate vulnerabilities. But at the beginning of 2016 Debian was lucky to have a modified browser that does not fall under the above restrictions and can retain the original name and logo. On the one hand, this is a recognition of merit and a demonstration of trust in Debian. On the other hand, the software, obviously uncleaned from non-free components, is now a part of the distribution. If by this time Debian had been included in the list of free GNU/Linux distributions, the Free Software Foundation wouldn’t have hesitated to point this out.
|
||||
|
||||
### Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
Freedom in the digital world is as important as freedom in the real world. In this article, I tried to reveal one of the most important features of Debian – developing distribution with regard to the freedom of its users. Developers spend extra time cleaning up non-free components from software, and dozens of distributions for which Debian is the technology base inherit its work, and with it, a piece of freedom.
|
||||
|
||||
Also, I wanted to share a simple observation that freedom is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance, and it is quite natural to enquire what is really free and what is not. Debian cannot be called a free GNU/Linux distribution now because of the presence of Firefox in it. But from 2011, when Debian finally began cleaning the kernel along with other components of the distribution, and until 2016, when Firefox became part of the distribution, the Free Software Foundation did not consider the distribution to be free for purely ideological reasons: Debian greatly simplifies the installation of non-free software… Now it’s your turn to weigh up all the arguments and decide whether to consider the GNU/Linux distribution as free or not.
|
||||
|
||||
Good luck! And stay as free as possible.
|
||||
|
||||
Written by Evgeny Golyshev for [Cusdeb.com][4]
|
||||
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
via: https://news.itsfoss.com/fsf-does-not-consider-debian-a-free-distribution/
|
||||
|
||||
作者：[Abhishek][a]
|
||||
选题：[lkxed][b]
|
||||
译者：[译者ID](https://github.com/译者ID)
|
||||
校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
|
||||
|
||||
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
|
||||
|
||||
[a]: https://news.itsfoss.com/author/root/
|
||||
[b]: https://github.com/lkxed
|
||||
[1]: https://news.itsfoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/why-fsf-doesnt-consider-debian-a-free-software-1200-%C3%97-675px.png
|
||||
[2]: https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
|
||||
[3]: https://debian.org/social_contract
|
||||
[4]: https://wiki.cusdeb.com/Essays:Why_the_FSF_does_not_consider_Debian_as_a_free_distribution/en
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
||||
[#]: subject: "FSF Does Not Accept Debian as a Free Distribution. Here’s Why!"
|
||||
[#]: via: "https://news.itsfoss.com/fsf-does-not-consider-debian-a-free-distribution/"
|
||||
[#]: author: "Abhishek https://news.itsfoss.com/author/root/"
|
||||
[#]: collector: "lkxed"
|
||||
[#]: translator: "Chao-zhi"
|
||||
[#]: reviewer: " "
|
||||
[#]: publisher: " "
|
||||
[#]: url: " "
|
||||
|
||||
自由软件基金会为什么不认为 Debian 是一种自由发行版？
|
||||
======
|
||||
![Why FSF doesn't consider Debian a free distribution][1]
|
||||
|
||||
Debian 项目开发了一个尊重用户自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版。它的 non-free 软件源中拥有许多根据各式各样的自由许可证分发的软件。这些软件真正被发布到 Debian 之前会进行清理。而自由软件基金会 (Free Software Foundation, FSF) 维护着一份[自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版列表](2)，但奇怪的是，Debian 并不在这个列表中。事实是 Debian 不符合进入此列表的某些标准，我们很想知道到底不满足哪些标准。但首先，我们需要了解所有这些劳心劳力的工作是如何得到证明的。换句话说，为什么要费心尝试进入一些名单，尤其是这个名单？
|
||||
|
||||
曾于 2010 年至 2013 年担任 Debian 项目负责人的 Stefano Zacchiroli 曾表示 Debian 应该获得 FSF 的承认以维护它自由发行版的地位的几个原因。其中一个原因，Stefano 称之为“外部审查”，我特别赞同。事实是 Debian 的软件应当满足一些标准和质量水平才能成为发行版的一部分，但除了 Debian 开发人员自己之外没有人控制这个过程。如果该发行版被包含在这份珍贵的清单中，那么 FSF 将密切关注 Debian 的命运，并给予适度的批评。我相信这是很好的动力。如果你也这么认为，那么现在让我们看看 FSF 认为 Debian 不够自由的原因。
|
||||
|
||||
### Debian 社会契约
|
||||
|
||||
除了自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版列表之外，FSF 还维护着一份 GNU/Linux 发行版的列表，这些发行版由于某种原因被拒绝为自由状态。对于此列表中的每个发行版，都有一个带有拒绝的简短论据的评论。从对 Debian 的评论中可以清楚地看出，FSF 和 Debian 项目在对“自由分发”一词的解释上产生分歧的主要根源是一份被称为 Debian 社会契约的文件。
|
||||
|
||||
Debian 社会契约有五点。要回答主要问题，我们只需要关注其中两个点——即第一个和第五个，其他的省略。在[此处](3)查看合同的完整版本。
|
||||
|
||||
第一点说：« **Debian 将保持 100% 自由**。我们在标题为“Debian 自由软件指南”的文档中提供了用于确定作品是否“自由”的指南。我们承诺根据这些指南，Debian 系统及其所有组件将是自由的。我们将支持在 Debian 上创建或使用自由和非自由作品的人。我们永远不会让系统需要使用非自由组件。»
|
||||
|
||||
同时，第五点写道：« **不符合我们自由软件标准的作品**。我们承认我们的一些用户需要使用不符合 Debian 自由软件指南的作品。我们在我们的档案中为这些作品创建了“free”和“non-free”区域。这些区域中的软件包不是 Debian 系统的一部分，尽管它们已被配置为与 Debian 一起使用。我们鼓励 CD 制造商阅读这些区域的软件包许可证，并确定他们是否可以在其 CD 上分发这些软件包。因此，尽管非自由作品不是 Debian 的一部分，但我们支持它们的使用并为非自由软件包提供基础设施（例如我们的错误跟踪系统和邮件列表）。»
|
||||
|
||||
尽管合同规定分发将保持 100% 自由，但它允许官方存档的部分可能包含非自由软件或依赖于某些非自由组件的自由软件。形式上，根据同一份合同，这些部分中的软件不是 Debian 的一部分，但 FSF 对此感到困扰，因为这些部分使在系统上安装非自由软件变得更加容易。
|
||||
|
||||
2011 年时，FSF 有合理的理由不考虑 Debian 自由版——该发行版附带了一个未清除二进制 blob 的 Linux 内核。但自 2011 年 2 月发布的 Squeeze 至今，Debian 已经包含了完全自由的 Linux 内核。因此，简化非自由软件的安装是 FSF 无法将 Debian 识别为自由发行版的主要原因，直到 2016 年这是我知道的唯一原因，但在 2016 年初出现了问题……
|
||||
|
||||
### 等等…… 关 Firefox 什么事？
|
||||
|
||||
很长一段时间，Debian 都包含一个名为 Iceweasel 的浏览器，它只不过是 Firefox 浏览器的更名。进行品牌重塑有两个原因。首先，浏览器标志和名称是 Mozilla 基金会的商标，提供非自由软件与 DFSG 相抵触。其次，通过在发行版中包含浏览器，Debian 开发人员必须遵守 Mozilla 基金会的要求，该基金会禁止以 Firefox 的名义交付浏览器的修改版本。因此，开发人员不得不更改名称，因为他们不断更改浏览器代码以修复错误并消除漏洞。但在 2016 年初，Debian 有幸拥有一款经过修改的浏览器，不受上述限制，可以保留原来的名称和徽标。一方面，这是对 Debian 修改的认可，也是对 Debian 信任的体现。另一方面，该软件显然没有从非自由组件中清除，现在已成为发行版的一部分。如果此时 Debian 已被列入免费 GNU/Linux 发行版列表，那么自由软件基金会会毫不犹豫地指出这一点。
|
||||
|
||||
### 结论
|
||||
|
||||
数字世界中的自由与现实世界中的自由同样重要。在这篇文章中，我试图揭示 Debian 最重要的特性之一——开发与用户自由相关的发行版。开发人员花费额外的时间从软件中清理非自由组件，并且以 Debian 为技术基础的数十个发行版继承了它的工作，并由此获得了一部分自由。
|
||||
|
||||
另外，我想分享一个简单的观察，即自由并不像乍看起来那么简单，人们自然会去追问什么是真正的自由和什么不是。由于 Firefox 的存在，Debian 现在不能被称为自由的 GNU/Linux 发行版。但从 2011 年，当 Debian 终于开始清理内核以及发行版的其他组件时，直到 2016 年 Firefox 成为发行版的一部分，自由软件基金会出于纯粹的意识形态原因并不认为该发行版是自由的：原因是 Debian 大大简化了非自由软件的安装……现在轮到你权衡所有的争论并决定是否将 GNU/Linux 发行版视为自由的了。
|
||||
|
||||
祝你好运！并尽可能保持自由。
|
||||
|
||||
由 Evgeny Golyshev 为 [Cusdeb.com](4) 撰写
|
||||
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
via: https://news.itsfoss.com/fsf-does-not-consider-debian-a-free-distribution/
|
||||
|
||||
作者：[Abhishek][a]
|
||||
选题：[lkxed][b]
|
||||
译者：[Chao-zhi](https://github.com/Chao-zhi)
|
||||
校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
|
||||
|
||||
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
|
||||
|
||||
[a]: https://news.itsfoss.com/author/root/
|
||||
[b]: https://github.com/lkxed
|
||||
[1]: https://news.itsfoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/why-fsf-doesnt-consider-debian-a-free-software-1200-%C3%97-675px.png
|
||||
[2]: https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
|
||||
[3]: https://debian.org/social_contract
|
||||
[4]: https://wiki.cusdeb.com/Essays:Why_the_FSF_does_not_consider_Debian_as_a_free_distribution/en
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user