Why the FSF No Longer Recommends Debian, as Explained by Richard Stallman This Month
We use Debian almost everywhere (the laptops, servers etc.), but even some people who worked inside Debian caution that the wrong people are in charge of the project. Several high-profile people warned that the leadership had been hijacked. Not just by a certain Cambridge cabal (where admissions are tied to family connections and tribalism) but also various GCHQ-connected people whose views on confidentiality and privacy vastly differ from ours (Canonical seems to have been impacted by this as well). But putting all this baggage and suspicion aside, here is what the founder of Free software said about Debian in French some weeks ago: (automated translation into English)
Stéphane:
I also wanted to talk to you about Debian GNU/Linux, launched in 1993 by Ian Murdoch, initially with the support of the FSF. Debian has its own definition of free software, a little different from the FSF's. How did that work in the beginning? Was there any collaboration between the FSF and Debian?Richard:
Yes. The FSF funded Debian in its early days. But soon, the project, which had more contributors, wanted to formulate a different definition of freedom, with the intention of being equivalent.At the time, I made a mistake: I should have checked more carefully whether there might be any differences in interpretation between the GNU Project and Debian. The definition seemed equivalent to me, even though it was worded differently. I said, “That's fine.” But in reality, there were potential problems.
Later, when open source emerged, they took over Debian's definition. I don't know if they changed a few words, but they mostly changed the interpretation. From then on, it was no longer equivalent to that of free software. Today, there are programs that are considered "open source" but not free software, and vice versa.
I actually explained these differences in my essay Open Source Misses the Point .
But I should note that Debian, finally, wanted to include proprietary programs in their distribution, but put them elsewhere, to establish a very clear separation between free and proprietary components. And so, it was possible to recommend the Debian main section for installing a free system. But, after some policy changes a few years ago, this is no longer true.
Stéphane:
However, Debian, at the time, wanted to maintain a clear separation between free and non-free.Richard:
Yes. Debian used to put proprietary programs in a separate section, and the “main” part of Debian could be recommended as a free system. But a few years ago, they changed their policy. Today, even the official Debian installer can include proprietary drivers. For this reason, we can no longer recommend Debian, not even its “main” section. And that's a shame.Stéphane:
That's true. Yes, they recently changed their social contract, which some say gives more flexibility. But in reality, the reality is that now there may be some proprietary drivers automatically installed by the official Debian installer.Richard:
And for that, we can no longer recommend installing Debian, or even the main section of Debian. And that's a shame.Stéphane:
Yes, it's a shame. It's still a popular distribution, and it's true that it's a shame that it's heading in the wrong direction. And do you still make a distinction between, how could we put it, it's true that there's no open source movement, but to say the supporters of open source and Debian, is Debian still more part of an ethical logic than open source, or do you think that today...Richard:
Yes, that's true. But Debian doesn't fully follow it like it used to. Too bad.
For more information on this topic, I recommend checking out gnu.org/distros .
A lot of the history of the interactions between Debian leadership at the time (Perens) and the FSF (or Richard Stallman, RMS) can be found in debian-private. █
Started by a son of a scholar working in Germany, today's Debian is heavily influenced by GAFAM and state actors.