If we take Parabola Social Contract # 1 as a rule, I think this issue qualifies as support of execution of non-free software. For example, in a similar way, virt-install package removes support of non-free distros. Whatever is the decision, I think there has to be consistency on where to draw the line.

Perhaps, maintainer from Arch package has not added nvidia-utils to optdepends yet, so it doesn't depend on it right now. Obviously, I'm not going to report this to Arch bug tracker in my free time ;)

ive never used virt-install; but IIRC the deal there, is that the
program will suggest and maybe even download the non-free
distro installer, like unetbootin

the idea of a libre distro is not to prevent people from running
non-free software - if they want to use it, thats freedom #0 -
the FSDG requires that we do not suggest, recommend, or assist
with using non-free programs - it does not require that we make
it impossible - if it did, then no javascript enabled web
browsers would be allowed - the browsers must not recommend
installing non-free addons; but they may use them if the user
acquires them elsewhere

the only exception of the preemptive kind you are suggesting is
the ability to load DRM modules - the FSDG requires that to be
removed

I'm pretty sure virt-install does not prevent users from running non-free distros. AFAIK it removes preset configurations which can be automatically suggested by new VM wizard based on distro detected from ISO file.

ok, i see now the bit in the parabola social contract that you are referring to

do not provide any type of support for the installation or execution of non-Free software.

im quite sure that is referring to technical support - as in: we will not explain or assist how to use non-free programs - we can surely have a discussion about that - i think the parabola social contract should be revised to be more precise and concise, and more importantly renamed to something more practical and accurate like: mission statement

for all practical purposes regarding the software packages, the parabola social contract could be summarized by one sentence, that is: "parabola follows the FSDG, and extends the FSDG to all files on the system" - the only "social" bit really, is the part that says we should involve the entire community in the decision making process; and im all for that

I certainly did not mean that there has to be some restriction added to what users can run. After all, the sources are all there.

As another example, linux-libre disables loading of known non-free firmware blobs. It looks like KSysGuard would find and run non-free blob by hard-coded name (see commit), if it's available.

thats not quite accurate about linux-libre - what it does, is it refuses to load any module that is not whitelisted; and that has been explained to me as a bug, not an intentional feature - the debian kernel used by pureos will load any compatible module that it finds; and the FSF did not see that as a problem when they endorsed pureos

again, we can have a conversation about this; but it should be on the mailing list for the benefit of everyone - id say that as things stand today, this is not a freedom bug - i will leave it open for a bit though to see if anyone else chimes in

Probably I opened this issue based on wrong examples. As long as the package is free and stays in Parabola repos in one form or another, I'm fine.

Arch Linux added nonfree nvidia-utils as an optional dependency, see https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/ksysguard&id=9c1bfff56c8aa200ff857aa84641a6952f6df7f5