Non-free repositories: should they be allowed?

Hi, I have to ask: what is a repository, actually?
I think you need to explain things better if you want people to write in forums, you really do.

Hi,

A repository is a huge container of software. See here:

Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_repository

Basically, your distribution will make several pieces of software available through their repository (or repositories!). Normally, there is ONE official repository, and other "not-quite-official" ones.

This makes installation _amazingly_ simple, especially because the repositories normally know about dependencies. So, if you install software A, but software A needs softwares B and C to work, the installer will deal with this without any trouble!

Committed

This is really just a matter of differentiation. Some distributions have their reputation staked on very high levels of guaranteed user freedoms, others on ease of use. Clearly the first category (e.g. Debian) is going to prefer limiting distribution of non-free materials, while the second (e.g. Linspire) is going to prefer to facillitate them.

I use Debian myself. But I'd probably recommend a distribution that isn't afraid of non-free drivers to someone who's just trying out a GNU/Linux distribution. I'm willing to put up with the hassles associated with using 100% free software -- things like having to be choosy about hardware purchases and/or occasionally having to deal with buggy or incomplete support. But that makes sense, because these are hassles I'm prepared for -- I have sufficient training and experience to get around these problems, and because I value the reward for it, I'm willing to.

OTOH, most people aren't in my position. They just want things to work, and I think that's fair.

If we allow them, aren't we are more likely to get converts to FOSS. Then, once there is critical mass, won't we be at the point where proprietary options will no longer be needed, where they are superceded by FOSS alternatives or where they'll cease to exist?

We sacrifice a little freedom now so we can have a lot more or total freedom down the track.

I personally dislike repositories of non-free applications, but I understand the need for non-free drivers, firmware, codecs and similar software. In my view: Repo with Flash player and mp3 codecs → Good; Repo with the Opera Browser → Bad. After all, there's not much need for proprietary applications, FLOSS alternatives are just as good, most of the time.

Choice should be the key here. Non-free repositories should be available but (IMO) not by default.
In that way you are giving people the choice to run non-free stuff but you are making them very aware that this extra stuff may have different distribution and usage restrictions etc.
Assuming we are talking about drivers etc. putting them in a non-free repository may (and I mean *may*) prompt the hardware manufacturers to set the code free.
Example: two 3d graphics cards are available to a user, one has drivers in the free (default) repository and one in the non-free. A user buying the first one will likely recommend it as "works out of the box with Linux" to their friends. With the non-free one a user may well recommend it with the caveat "but you'll have to install the driver from the non-free repository". Whilst this is not a huge problem the second user may well go down the path of least resistance. (Well we can hope can't we).