[yellowapple]

Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available. Case study here would be OpenBSD, which is about as free of an operating system as it gets, and which does not ship with nonfree firmware by default. However, because of the existence of the `fw_update` command (which - by the explicit consent of the user/owner of the machine - fetches any nonfree firmware necessary for the hardware on one's system), OpenBSD doesn't qualify for the FSF's endorsement.

The FSF's stance here also impacts the "ports" trees of various BSDs and (GNU/)Linuxen; if they so much as include instructions for compiling and installing nonfree software (regardless of whether they actually include nonfree software), the FSF considers the whole OS nonfree. Same deal with any (GNU/)Linux distro that maintains a nonfree repo - even if that repo is disabled by default.

The rationale for these sorts of stances is that even so much as making nonfree software available for installation is an "endorsement" of that software. In spite of that rationale, the FSF maintains officially-sanctioned precompiled ports of software like GIMP for nonfree operating systems like Windows and macOS - because apparently it's okay to endorse those nonfree operating systems, because reasons.

[ziml77]

They explicitly rationalize the Windows builds of Emacs, so I can only assume that's the same rationale as for any other GNU software

> To improve the use of proprietary systems is a misguided goal. Our aim, rather, is to eliminate them. We include support for some proprietary systems in GNU Emacs in the hope that running Emacs on them will give users a taste of freedom and thus lead them to free themselves.

Taken from https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/download.html

[jimmyvalmer]

We include support for some proprietary systems in GNU Emacs in the hope that running Emacs on them will give users a taste of freedom

The weakness of this sauce is staggering. I understand GNU Emacs wanting to preserve forty years of hard work supporting Windows and MacOS, but justifying it via the "taste of freedom" sets off my hypocrisy alarm. It's also just patently false because emacs users stick with Windows precisely because emacs still works there.

[yellowapple]

Not to mention that running a free operating system with a handful of nonfree programs is by every objective measure a far bigger taste of freedom than running a nonfree operating system with a handful of free programs.

[jimmyvalmer]

the FSF maintains officially-sanctioned precompiled ports of software like GIMP for nonfree operating systems like Windows and macOS - because apparently it's okay to endorse those nonfree operating systems, because reasons.

I've been for the last year shouting myself hoarse on emacs forums regarding this hypocrisy.

[seba_dos1]

I think it's important to understand that "being free" and "endorsed by FSF" are two completely distinct states. It's not enough to be fully free to get endorsed - FSF has their right to decide fully arbitrarily what's acceptable enough to endorse it and what isn't, and being technically free is just one of the aspects they are considering. Endorsement isn't technical, it's political.

> the FSF considers the whole OS nonfree

As an example, the FSF does not consider Debian nonfree - they even acknowledge that "Debian is the only common non-endorsed distribution to keep nonfree blobs out of its main distribution"; they just don't want to endorse it because it points people to nonfree software. As a user, I don't mind that it does so I use Debian, but FSF is free to not want to endorse it because of that.

[guilhas]

> Not only does the FSF object to the inclusion of nonfree firmware, but it also objects to even so much as making it available

Guix is FSF approved and also gives the ability to enable nonfree-firmware?

I know Debian is excluded for hosting nonfree software, even if disabled by default