[FSFLA] Leaving the list - final clarifications

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

*Personally*, I see that Eder, and FSF/FSFLA/FSFE --- and also I as
free/libre software activist --- have different views of *how* to
collaborate with Debian.

They do agree that at some point, Debian is making contributions to
free/libre software. However, Eder sees that the retribution/support
from the FSF/FSFLA/FSFE --- and also I as free/libre software activist
--- could be different, more to the point of "Debian now has only
free/libre repositories enabled by default and free/libre kernel too, so
FSF/FSFLA/FSFE should support them by recommending/fostering adoption of
Debian like any other free/libre system distribution".

However, FSF/FSFLA/FSFE --- and also I as free/libre software activist
--- see it differently, specially because of the other side which the
previous argumentation in quotes forgot to mention: the packages not
compliant with the GNU FSDG (not just software) still being
recommended/fostered either by members of Debian project or by the
repositories that the Debian project recommends/fosters (although they
don't provide these themselves, recommending/fostering these is still
problematic).

In 2015, John Sullivan made a presentation to the Debian project
outlining the progress towards a GNU FSDG compliant Debian
([[http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/Debian_and_the_FSF_Ending_disagreements_by_solving_problems_at_the_source.webm]]),
but what puzzles me the most is that the Debian project seems to
misunderstnad what are the FSF/FSFLA/FSFE priorities when it analyses a
system distribution using the GNU FSDG. The FSF can only
recommend/foster Debian if it is committed to the GNU FSDG, not the
other way around.

Morever, the compromise to allow Debian users to participate in h-node
is possible only if the tester has only the main repository enabled ---
and ideally, no extra packages than those in that repository.

As a note perhaps for other topic: However, I once interviewed
Christopher Waid from ThinkPenguin about how the organization came to
existence, and was warneed that, while compatibility catalogs such as
seem to solve the problem of the product being fostered, they only work
around it. So making an analogy between the situation before
ThinkPenguin and the current scenario that involves h-node, all products
certified with RYF, and the upcoming Libre Tea Computer Card (not to be
confused with EOMA68): personally, I see h-node as a way to *delay* the
burning of our "free/libre software house", and RYF devices and LTCC as
the fire extinguishers.

People tell us countless times that either the devices listed in h-node
are hard to find, or that the devices listed in RYF page are expensive,
so I think we as free/libre software activists are already feeling the
fire burning so long as we fail to foster RYF devices and LTCC. In such
case, h-node should be left as last resort.