> But this doesn't qualify some specific software, it qualifies a distribution.
I never thought about it. Why wouldn't it be the same for any software? A distribution is nothing else but a (large) set of software. Do you think one could find a software that downloads something nonfree in the FSF Free Software Directory? I do not expect that.
Nowadays, in our connected world, it doesn't matter if the software nonfree or it downloads a nonfree piece. It's effectively the same thing.
You could extend the criteria for fsf-approved distributions to extensible software, it would make sense.
Then you'd have free software, and then fsf-approved software, a subset of the former.
I guess they defined criteria for distributions specifically because they needed to provide guidance to people building distributions. You have to be specific to be clear and useful, many things are probably irrelevant to general software.
> Nowadays, in our connected world, it doesn't matter if the software nonfree or it downloads a nonfree piece. It's effectively the same thing.
Well, for me a line is definitely crossed between the proprietary code never reaching my computer or the code sitting here. I'm personally comfortable with an option to download proprietary software that is disabled by default.
I'm quite comfortable with Debian offering me to install non free firmware as long as it's optional and clear. I'm fine with its documentation mentioning non-free software as long as it's clearly marked as well (and done reluctantly). Of course I would not be happy with Debian's wiki recommending proprietary software left and right. But I think forbidding to share some knowledge goes a bit too far (it is borderline censorship), and is not even practical: even Purism recommended a way to upgrade the Intel microcode when spectre and meltdown were discovered and mitigated [1]. Although they claim that the patch isn't part of PureOS, they are the ones maintaining the distro, it feels close enough and quite artificial for an update of something that's already running in the CPU anyway.
I believe that it was quite clever of RMS not to try to put those restrictions in the free software definition.
> Do you think one could find a software that downloads something nonfree in the FSF Free Software Directory? I do not expect that.
Typically, Firefox with the non-free extensions.
We need a pure message from the fsf, but I don't believe the fsf-approved distro criteria help a lot, they are so impractical (and borderline undesirable imho for the censorship part) that if free software oriented distros like Debian and Fedora respected them, the free software movement would probably be weaker, with way fewer people being able to switch to a free distro. It would possibly be counter productive, because there would probably be fewer people helping other switch, and working on free replacements.
It's a tradeoff: too many compromises dilute and weaken or even cancel the message. Too few makes the message irrelevant to too many people. And I don't believe discussing solutions based on proprietary software is compromising if done correctly. You at least need to know what to reverse engineer to produce a free alternative. Convincing people that free software is the right way to handle computers is important, and it is far more effective if it is within their reach. Migrating from windows or Mac to a (GNU/)Linux distro but with non-free firmware is already a net win. If the alternative is to just stay on windows, that's possibility way fewer people convinced that free software is the right way to do stuff, and possibility fewer people working on getting rid of proprietary software.
> but I don't believe the fsf-approved distro criteria help a lot, they are so impractical
They are, but it's by design. You are not supposed to follow them as an ordinary user. They were created in order to show the one true freedom as it should exist.
Oh, I didn't realize there is a FSF free software directory. Thanks for the (re?)discovery.
> They are, but it's by design
I don't think anybody actually wants free software without any compromise to be impractical, so no, I would not say by design, it's just a sad reality.
My stronger concern is that it's likely impractical for free software advocacy.
> I don't think anybody actually wants free software without any compromise to be impractical
This is not what I meant when I said "by design". I meant that in today's world, striving for the true, pure freedom is very much expected to be impractical, so do not be surprised that the FSF-endorsed distros are unusable. Nobody wants that but it's expected. This however serves as a goal, so not completely useless. I guess we agree.
I never thought about it. Why wouldn't it be the same for any software? A distribution is nothing else but a (large) set of software. Do you think one could find a software that downloads something nonfree in the FSF Free Software Directory? I do not expect that.
Nowadays, in our connected world, it doesn't matter if the software nonfree or it downloads a nonfree piece. It's effectively the same thing.