On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:20:37 -0700 Todd Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > Well this thread took a turn way off topic. Indeed, sorry for that.
> This is IRRELEVANT to getting PureOS distribution endorsement. > It is VERY RELEVANT to getting FSF RYF certification. I wasn't suggesting that it was relevant at all. I was just responding to the thread. Note that I also CC-ed you you on purpose, so you could respond to my comments, or correct me if I was wrong. > We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more. > So let's discuss those points. That's why I (also) pointed to the libreplanet wiki resource hoping that it would help PureOS become FSDG compliant. > > I wonder if the fact that they didn't chose an unmodified Trisquel > > is due to some integration of Tor inside their distribution. > > We originally chose trisquel, but being fourth forked from Debian > didn't make much sense, when we can get closer to a reliable upstream > provider such as Debian, and meet the same goals. It might be interesting to collaborate with Debian to reach the FSDG status. I would guess that they still do accept bug-reports related to it. The idea would be to both benefit from each other work, to minimize the amount of work done. > We are ONLY working on PureOS distribution endorsement in this thread. > Please stop combining the two. Should I continue on another thread for the non-pureOS related discussion? If so, is that mailing list appropriate? Denis.
pgpJa73a65T6B.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
