Get listed in the FSF free software GNU distributions
_Originally created by Tails on [#5393 (Redmine)](https://public-redmine-archive.tails.boum.org/code/issues/5393)_
In a distribution that has non-free software, privacy and anonymity are
at risk. As TAILS is a distribution that protects the privacy and
anonymity of its users, it is implied that it will include and recommend
only free software. \~ Quiliro
<blockquote>
Not necessarily so. Has the anonymous user who posted this has muddled
"*free*" and *open*?
> No. I don’t mean open. That is an entirely different movement. I mean
> free as in freedom. \~ Quiliro
</blockquote>
The Free Software Foundation currently holds a list of GNU distributions
that do not use or recommend non-free software. TAILS could be listed
there and promote its use by activists and other users that value
privacy and anonymity. \~ Quiliro
<blockquote>
I doubt Tails is "free\" enough to satisfy those requirements but I
am sure a pragmatic approach is to the benefit of Tails and its users.
(e.g. codecs)
<blockquote>
I don’t think Tails ships any non-free codecs. Tails ships firmware
blobs, though.
<blockquote>
This second comment is more exact and more relevant. The non-free blobs
might render the software non-anonymous and non-private. They could
contain software that reports on its users and discover information on
communication. \~ Quiliro
My Tails plays MP3s and a rich selection of Video formats. I believe few
of these is "free\" (according to FSF definition/decree)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
There are plenty of other (higher profile) opportunities to promote
Tails.
<blockquote>
After reading <https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html> and
<https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>,
it’s obvious Tails does not satisfy the FSF requirements to be listed in
there => closing.
<blockquote>
Using non-free software or firmware means lacking anonymity and privacy.
Please provide supporting facts against this before closing the issue
again. \~ Quiliro
> In the current state of things, being part of the FSF free distros
> list is not a goal of ours, hence closing again the current ticket
> that is precisely about this. I’m sorry, but this ticket is certainly
> not the proper place to discuss the inclusion of firmware blobs etc.
> Feel free to raise this discussion on tails-dev if you feel it’s
> important enough. —intrigeri
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Indeed it is, but it is important that tails firmware blobs are at least
open even if not free. Perhaps a compromise could be reached however.
Tails image could be splited in the future. This could allow for a
"core\" tails with repositories (one of them could be the
proprietary one). There are working free distros such as gnewsense and
trisquel, if a tails user failed his/her hardware with this core tails,
the firmware blobs (and/or themes and other packages) could be
downloaded possibly through the incremental (or should I say optional in
this case?) upgrades package. In the end every user would win, but
although OP point is somewhat valid and tails could benefit from
including only free software, usability being badly sacrificed in order
to be included in a list..well probably not a good idea ;) As a bonus
perhaps the proposed solution could allow "core tails\" to fit in a
cd again. Just an idea \~ Hypothesys
<blockquote>
This is an oxymoron. TAILS cannot be free (as in freedom) without being
opensource. The issue is: \* Non-free software = security risk. \* TAILS
with non-free software = security risk. \* Is TAILS willing to solve
this bug or prove it is not a security risk? \~ Quiliro
> It is not an oxymoron. No software can be free (as in freedom) without
> being open-source. The "issue\" is: you’ve gone on to muddle
> *free* and *open* (again)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
issue