<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<link rel="alternate" title="Free GNU/Linux distributions"
href="http://www.gnu.org/distros/distros.rss"
type="application/rss+xml" />
<!--#include virtual="/distros/po/common-distros.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
<p>We're often asked why we don't endorse a particular
system—usually a popular GNU/Linux distribution. The short
answer to that question is that they don't follow
the <a href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">free
system distribution guidelines</a>. But since it isn't always obvious
how a particular system fails to follow the guidelines, this list
gives more information about the problems of certain well-known
nonfree system distros.</p>
<p>To learn more about the GNU/Linux systems that we do endorse, check
out our list of <a href="/distros/free-distros.html">free GNU/Linux
distributions</a>.</p>
<p>Except where noted, all of the distributions listed on this page
fail to follow the guidelines in at least two important ways:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>They do not have a policy of <em>only</em> including free
software, and removing nonfree software if it is discovered. Most of
them have no clear policy on what software they'll accept or reject at
all. The distributions that do have a policy unfortunately aren't
strict enough, as explained below.</p></li>
<li><p>The kernel that they distribute (in most cases, Linux) includes
“blobs”: pieces of object code distributed without source,
usually firmware to run some device.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Here is a list of some popular nonfree GNU/Linux distributions in
alphabetical order, with brief notes about how they fall short. We do
not aim for completeness; once we know some reasons we can't endorse a
certain distro, we do not keep looking for all the reasons.
</p>
<p>A distro may have changed since we last updated information about
it; if you think one of the problems mentioned here has been
corrected, please <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">let us know</a>.
However, we will study and endorse a distro only if its developers ask
for our endorsement.</p>
<!-- Please keep this list sorted, first with all the GNU systems
alphabetically, then all the non-GNU systems alphabetically. -->
<h3 id="Arch">Arch GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Arch has the two usual problems: there's no clear policy
about what software can be included, and nonfree blobs are shipped with
their kernel, Linux. Arch also has no policy about not distributing
nonfree software through their normal channels.</p>
<h3 id="Canaima">Canaima</h3>
<p>Canaima GNU/Linux is a distribution made by Venezuela's government
to distribute computers with GNU/Linux. While the overall plan is
admirable, Canaima is flawed by the inclusion of nonfree software.</p>
<p>Its main menu has an option, “Install nonfree
software”, which installs all the nonfree drivers (even the
ones that are not necessary). The distro also provides blobs for the
kernel, Linux, and invites installing nonfree applications including
Flash Player.</p>
<h3 id="CentOS">CentOS</h3>
<p>We're not aware of problems in CentOS aside from the two usual ones:
there's no clear policy about what software can be included,
and nonfree blobs are shipped with Linux, the kernel. Of course, with
no firm policy in place, there might be other nonfree software
included that we missed.</p>
<h3 id="Debian">Debian GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely
free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out
of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a
repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this
software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the
repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people
can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's
online package database.</p>
<p>There is also a “contrib” repository; its packages are
free, but some of them exist to load separately distributed
proprietary programs. This too is not thoroughly separated from the
main Debian distribution.</p>
<p>Previous releases of Debian included nonfree blobs with Linux, the
kernel. With the release of Debian 6.0 (“squeeze”) in
February 2011, these blobs have been moved out of the main
distribution to separate packages in the nonfree repository. However,
the problem partly remains: the installer in some cases recommends
these nonfree firmware files for the peripherals on the machine.</p>
<h3 id="Fedora">Fedora</h3>
<p>Fedora does have a clear policy about what can be included in the
distribution, and it seems to be followed carefully. The policy
requires that most software and all fonts be available under a free
license, but makes an exception for certain kinds of nonfree firmware.
Unfortunately, the decision to allow that firmware in the policy keeps
Fedora from meeting the free system distribution guidelines.</p>
<h3 id="Gentoo">Gentoo GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Gentoo includes installation recipes for a number of nonfree
programs in its primary package system.</p>
<h3 id="Mandriva">Mandriva GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Mandriva does have a stated policy about what can be included in the
main system. It's based on Fedora's, which means that it also allows
certain kinds of nonfree firmware to be included. On top of that, it
permits software released under the original Artistic License to be
included, even though that's a nonfree license.</p>
<p>Mandriva also provides nonfree software through dedicated
repositories.</p>
<h3 id="Mint">Mint GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Mint does not have a policy against including nonfree software, it
includes nonfree binary blobs in drivers packaged with the kernel, and
it includes nonfree programs in its repositories. It even includes
proprietary codecs.</p>
<h3 id="openSUSE">openSUSE GNU/Linux</h3> id="openSUSE">openSUSE</h3>
<p>openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software. This is an
instance of
how <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
“open” is weaker than “free”</a>.</p>
<h3 id="RedHat">Red Hat GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Red Hat's enterprise distribution primarily follows the same
licensing policies as Fedora, with one exception. Thus, we don't
endorse it for <a href="#Fedora">the same reasons</a>. In addition to
those, Red Hat has no policy against making nonfree software available
for the system through supplementary distribution channels.</p>
<h3 id="Slackware">Slackware</h3>
<p>Slackware has the two usual problems: there's no clear policy about
what software can be included, and nonfree blobs are included in
Linux, the kernel. It also ships with the nonfree image-viewing
program xv. Of course, with no firm policy against them, more nonfree
programs could get in at any time. There is an
<a href="http://freeslack.net/">unofficial list</a> of nonfree software
in Slackware.</p>
<h3 id="SteamOS">SteamOS</h3>
<p>SteamOS, a version of GNU/Linux to be distributed by Valve, is not
actually released for download yet. At present, we can say that it is
very unlikely to be an operating system which respects user freedom,
because it is meant to work closely with Valve. It
contains proprietary software, including the Steam service. client and
proprietary drivers. Steam uses <a
href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm">Digital
Restrictions Management (DRM)</a> to impose restrictions on the
software it distributes. SteamOS will have to
contain distributes, as well as on the proprietary software necessary to enforce these
restrictions. It will also be designed to promote and integrate with it
promotes via the Steam store, which promotes a large amount of proprietary
software.</p> store.</p>
<h3 id="SUSE">SUSE GNU/Linux</h3> GNU/Linux Enterprise</h3>
<p>In addition to the usual two problems, several nonfree software
programs are available for download from SUSE's official FTP site.</p>
<h3 id="Tails">Tails</h3>
<p>Tails uses the vanilla version of Linux, which contains nonfree
firmware blobs.</p>
<h3 id="Ubuntu">Ubuntu GNU/Linux</h3>
<p>Ubuntu provides specific repositories of nonfree software, and
Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the
Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels. Ubuntu offers the
option to install only free packages, which means it also offers the
option to install nonfree packages too. In addition, the version of
Linux, the kernel, included in Ubuntu contains firmware blobs.</p>
<p>The “Ubuntu Software Center” lists proprietary programs
and free programs jumbled together. It
is <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/ubuntu_software_center_proprietary_and_free_software_mixed_confusing_ui">hard
to tell which ones are free</a> since proprietary programs for
download at no charge are labelled “free”.</p>
<p>
Ubuntu's trademark policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact
copies of Ubuntu, denying an important freedom.
</p>
<p>
As of
Since October 2012, Ubuntu
<a href="http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/10/does-ubuntus-amazon-lens-break-eu-law">
sends personal data about users' searches</a> to a server belonging to
Canonical, which sends back ads to buy things from Amazon. This does
not, strictly speaking, affect whether Ubuntu is free software, but it
is a violation of users' privacy. It also encourages buying from
Amazon, a company <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/">associated
with DRM</a> as well as mistreatment of workers, authors and publishers.</p>
<p>This adware is one of the rare occasions in which a free software
developer persists in keeping a malicious feature in its version of a
free program.</p>
<p>Ubuntu <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-property-policy#your-use-of-ubuntu">appears
to permit commercial redistribution of exact copies with the
trademarks</a>; removal of the trademarks is required only for
modified versions. That is an acceptable policy for trademarks. The
same page, further down, makes a vague and ominous statement about
“Ubuntu patents,” without giving enough details to show
whether that constitutes aggression or not.</p>
<p>That page spreads confusion by using the misleading
term <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">“intellectual property
rights”</a>, which falsely presumes that trademark law and patent law
and several other laws belong in one single conceptual framework. Use
of that term is harmful, without exception, so after making a
reference to someone else's use of the term, we should always reject
it. However, that is not a substantive issue about Ubuntu as a
GNU/Linux distribution.</p>
<h2>Some Other Distros</h2>
<p>Here we discuss some systems well-known or significant non-GNU/Linux system
distros that are do not GNU/Linux.</p> qualify as free.</p>
<h3 id="BSD">BSD systems</h3>
<p>FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining
nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels
include nonfree firmware blobs.</p>
<p>Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called
“blobs”, and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance,
the term “blob” means something else: a nonfree driver.
OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called “projects” by BSD
developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right
policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions
“contain no blobs”, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not
talking about firmware blobs.</p>
<p>No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only
firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.</p>
<h3 id="Haiku">Haiku</h3>
<p>Haiku includes some software that you're not allowed to modify. It
also includes nonfree firmware blobs.</p>
<h3 id="Android">Android</h3>
<p><a href="/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html">Android</a> as
released by Google contains many nonfree parts as well as many free
parts. Most of the free parts are covered by a pushover license (not
<a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>), so manufacturers that
distribute Android in a product sometimes make those parts nonfree as
well.</p>
<h3 id="CyanogenMod">CyanogenMod</h3>
<p>This modified version of Android contains nonfree libraries.
It also explains how to install the nonfree applications that Google
distributes with Android.</p>
<h3 id="ReactOS">ReactOS</h3>
<p>ReactOS is meant as a free binary compatible replacement for
Windows. Allowing people to continue using the proprietary software
and drivers meant for Windows is one of the stated goals of the
project. </p>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 2014 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2015/09/10 18:28:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>