+ + +
+

Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG)

+
+ +

+The purpose of these guidelines is to explain what it means for an +installable system distribution (such as a GNU/Linux distribution) to +qualify as free (libre), and +help distribution developers make their distributions qualify.

+ +

These guidelines are not complete. We have mentioned the issues we +are aware of now, but we're sure there are more. We will add them +when we come across them.

+ +

We would like to thank the Fedora Project for help in focusing +these policies, and allowing us to use its own distribution license +guidelines as a basis for this document.

+ + + + +

Complete Distros

+ +

Our list of distributions is a guide for systems you can install in +a computer. Therefore, it only includes distributions that are +complete in themselves and ready to use. If a distribution is +incomplete—if it requires further development, or presupposes +installing other software as well—then it is not listed here, +even if it is free software.

+ +

In particular, a free system distribution should be self-hosting. +This means that you must be able to develop and build the system with +tools that the system provides you. As a result, a free system +distribution cannot include free software that can only be built by +using nonfree software.

+ +

We make an exception to this requirement for small system +distributions, which are distros designed for devices with +limited resources, like a wireless router for example. Free small +system distributions do not need to be self-hosting or complete, +because it is impractical to do development on such a system, but it +must be developable and buildable on top of a free complete system +distribution from our list of distributions, perhaps with the aid of +free tools distributed alongside the small system distribution +itself.

+ +

License Rules

+ +

“Information for practical use” +includes software, documentation, fonts, and other data that has +direct functional applications. It does not include artistic works +that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or statements +of opinion or judgment.

+ +

All information for practical use in a free distribution must be +available in source form. (“Source” means the form of the +information that is preferred for making changes to it.)

+ +

The information, and the source, must be provided under an +appropriate free license. We +evaluate specific licenses and list our determinations +in our license +list, with separate sections for licenses that are suitable for +software, documentation, fonts, and other useful works. If such a +work is released under a disjunction of licenses, the work is free as +long as at least one of its licenses is free; the system developers +should follow the terms of the applicable free license(s) when they +distribute and/or modify it.

+ +

A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining +any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. +The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no +specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor +should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not +committed to only including free software; even if they only have free +software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in the system +should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so +on.

+ +

For instance, a free system distribution must not contain browsers +that implement EME, the browser functionality designed to load DRM +modules.

+ +

Some nonfree distros offer an installation option to exclude +nonfree packages. That option is a step forward, since it makes +avoiding them much easier, provided the distro's implementation of the +option is fully correct. However, the nonfree packages are +nonetheless included in the distro. Moreover, we know that most users +are not strongly committed to software freedom, and will not reject +packages that seem handy just for being nonfree. Practically +speaking, to list one of these distros as free would mostly lead +people to install nonfree software. For these reasons, we do not list +them.

+ +

There's a lot of code in most free system distributions today; the +amount of effort it would take to audit it all directly is impractical +for most teams. In the past, some nonfree code has accidentally been +included in free system distributions. We don't de-list distributions +because of this; instead, we only ask that a distribution's developers +make a good faith effort to avoid including nonfree software, and +commit themselves to removing such programs if any are discovered.

+ +

Certain kinds of license situations merit special attention for people +creating or considering free software distributions; those are +discussed in the sections below.

+ +

Nonfree Firmware

+ +

Some applications and drivers require firmware to function, and +sometimes that firmware is distributed only in object code form, under +a nonfree license. We call these firmware programs +“blobs.” On most GNU/Linux systems, you'll typically find +these accompanying some drivers in the kernel Linux. Such firmware +should be removed from a free system distribution.

+ +

Blobs can take many forms. Sometimes, they will be provided in +separate files. Other times, they may be incorporated into the source +of the driver itself—for example, it could be encoded as a large +array of numbers. But no matter how it's encoded, any nonfree +firmware needs to be removed from a free system.

+ +

(To be clear, not every array of numbers in a driver is firmware. +It's important to understand the purpose of the data before deciding +whether or not it's appropriate for a free system.)

+ +

Brian Brazil, Jeff Moe, and Alexandre Oliva have developed a series +of scripts +to remove nonfree firmware from a stock version of the Linux kernel. +You may find them helpful if you would like to develop your own free +GNU/Linux distribution—although we recommend joining development +of an existing free distro rather than fragmenting effort by starting a +new one. The complete source for a blob-free version of the Linux +kernel is also available; you can learn more about this project from the +Free +Software Directory.

+ +

Non-functional Data

+ +

Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is +more of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it. +Thus, we don't insist on the free license criteria for non-functional +data. It can be included in a free system distribution as long as its +license gives you permission to copy and redistribute, both for +commercial and non-commercial purposes. For example, some game +engines released under the GNU GPL have accompanying game +information—a fictional world map, game graphics, and so +on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This +kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though +its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional.

+ +

Trademarks

+ +

Trademarks are associated with some software. For example, the +name of a program may be trademarked, or its interface may display a +trademarked logo. Often, the use of these marks will be controlled +in some way; in particular, developers are commonly asked to remove +references to the trademark from the software when they modify +it.

+ +

In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the +program nonfree. It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a +trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all +throughout the original source. As long as the practical +requirements are reasonable, however, free system distributions may +include these programs, either with or without the trademarks.

+ +

Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. +It is not a problem if modification requires removal of these +trademarks, as long as they can readily be removed without losing +functionality.

+ +

However, it is unacceptable to use trademarks to restrict verbatim +copying and redistribution of the whole distribution, or any part.

+ +

Documentation

+ +

All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released +under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care +not to recommend nonfree software.

+ +

In general, something that helps people who already use nonfree +software to use the free software better with it is acceptable, but +something that encourages users of the free software to install +nonfree software is not.

+ +

For example, a free system distribution may have documentation for +users setting up dual boot systems. It could explain how to access +filesystems of the proprietary operating system, import settings +from it, and so on. That would be helping people install a free +system distribution on a machine which already has proprietary +software, which is good.

+ +

What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people +instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or +mention conveniences they might gain by doing so.

+ +

For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the +nonfree program would move it to the acceptable side of the line.

+ +

Patents

+ +

It is effectively impossible for free software developers and +distributors to know whether or not a given piece of software +infringes any patents: there are too many of them, they vary from +country to country, they're often worded so as to make it hard to tell +what they do or don't cover, and it isn't easy to tell which ones are +valid. Therefore, we don't generally ask free system distributions to +exclude software because of possible threats from patents. On the +other hand, we also don't object if a distributor chooses to omit some +software in order to avoid patent risk.

+ +

No Malware

+ +

The distro must contain no DRM, no back doors, and no spyware.

+ +

Commitment to Correct Mistakes

+ +

Most distribution development teams don't have the resources to +exhaustively check that their distribution meet all these criteria. +Neither do we. So we expect distros to occasionally contain mistakes: +nonfree software that slipped through, etc. We don't reject a +distribution over mistakes. Our requirement is for the distribution +developers to have a firm commitment to promptly correct any mistakes +that are reported to them.

+ +

Maintenance

+ +

To be listed, a distribution should be actively maintained, +and should give the GNU Project a clear and specific way to report problems +of nonfree software that we find out about. It should also +inform us when the problems we have reported are fixed.

+ +

Name Confusion

+ +

We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with +nonfree distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free +distribution and Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list +Foobar Light. This is because we expect that the distinction between +the two would be lost in the process of communicating the message.

+ +

In particular, the principal name of the free distribution +(“Foobar,” in this example) should not be part of the name +of any nonfree distribution.

+ +

Some people have thought of adding the name “GNU” to a +free distro name to distinguish it from a nonfree one. This has two +problems. First, the two names would not be sufficiently different, +since the principal word in both names would be the same.

+ +

Second, this would promote a misunderstanding of what +“GNU” means. GNU is an +operating system, typically used with Linux as the kernel, and +essentially all so-called “Linux” distributions are really +GNU/Linux distributions. In this scenario, +both versions are GNU/Linux, and it would be misleading to +omit “GNU” from the name of one of them.

+ +

Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream

+ +

For distro developers (or anyone else) who have sent an important bug +report for a GNU package: if it has gone unheeded by the package +maintainer after a reasonable time (please allow at least two weeks), +you can escalate the bug by writing to <maintainers@gnu.org>. +This is especially warranted if you can't find evidence of recent +activity by the package maintainer.

+ +

Please Teach Users about Free Software

+ +

To establish lasting freedom, just giving users freedom isn't +sufficient. It is necessary also to teach them to understand what it +means and to demand it. Thus, we suggest and urge that free distros +announce prominently on the screen, before login and on the default +desktop after login, a prominent statement about freedom, such as +“This system is freedom-respecting free/libre software” or +something comparable, and to present a link or icon pointing at +gnu.org or gnu.org/philosophy for further information about the +issue.

+ +

Please Avoid Repeating Propaganda and Confusion

+ +

Please see our list +of words to avoid, which +are either biased, misguided or misleading, and try to avoid them in +your public statements and discussions with the public.

+ +

Final Notes

+ +

We maintain a list of the free +GNU system distributions we know about. If you know about a free +distribution that isn't listed there, please ask its developers write +to <webmasters@gnu.org> with a description of +their system and a link to their web page.

+ +

We also list free +non-GNU system distributions on the same ethical conditions.

+ +

If you have questions or comments about these guidelines +themselves, feel free to send those to <licensing@fsf.org>. We hope +that they help everyone better understand the issues that are important +for free system distributions, and we look forward to promoting more +of them in the future.

+
+ +