On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:43:18PM +0200, Jaromil wrote: > > > > The distro must be able to fix bugs in its packages; when they use other > > people's repositories (which is the case for Uruk GNU/Linux) they > > effectively can't do this (not directly). > > ok, but this is not a condition that is directly related to being 100% > free. it is a (debatable) concern on quality assurance that has > nothing to do with being 100% free.
No, but it's directly related to being actively maintained, which is a condition for endorsing as a fully free distro; and this endorsement is exactly what we discuss. > For what we are concerned here, a distribution can be 100% free as-is > and without further upgrades, with one exception included in the 100% > free agreement for a "bounty". > > the "bounty" in brief: the maintainer(s) of a distribution should be > available to act and remove any non-free software that will be > spotted. > > To be available to do this does not entails the overhead of > maintaining an entire package repository! nor the imposition of using > a package manager instead of another, or perhaps even make your own > packaging, or just distribute iso updates, or squashed /usr... there > are many ways to update an OS.. > > I believe that Uruk can be 100% free even without offering a whole > package repository, but just by publishing all sources (and > modifications to existing Trisquel's sources) and agreeing to the > bounty. I'd like, on the one hand, someone who may speak for the GNU project to confirm that such workflow is acceptable, and on the other hand, Uruk GNU/Linux developers to state that they've implemented it.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
