Thanks everyone for your efforts! On Fri, 01 Jul 2016, Joshua Gay wrote: > > On 07/01/2016 03:28 PM, Dima Krasner wrote: > > > > What about not self-hosting distros, built using another 100% free distro? > > The self-hosting requirement and the small system distribution > exception are part of the "Complete Distro" requirement. This > section will not be effected by the new exception.
there are problems to be corrected in the guidelines in these regards. Self-hosting is a confusing term. I firmly agree with the substance, but not the choice of terminology, which suggests it is about "self-hosting packages" The definition given of self-hosting is correct: (https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) A free system distribution should be self-hosting. This means that you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the system provides you. As a result, a free system distribution cannot include free software that can only be built by using nonfree software. this is not about 'hosting' but about developing or bootstrapping. self-bootstrap should be the right term, IMHO. Or something else, but not self-hosting. Also note in the first section "Complete Distros" says: "self-hosting requirement above" but in fact the requirement is explained below. > The new exception will be to the section "Commitment to Correct > Mistakes". This requirement states: "Our requirement is for the > distribution developers to have a firm commitment to promptly > correct any mistakes that are reported to them." There is one > situation where we will find it acceptable if the distribution > developers are not able to promptly correct a mistake reported to > them and that is if they can not do this because they are relying > upon repositories which are hosted by another 100% free distro which > is also listed on > <https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>. In that situation, > it will be expected that the distro developers will file a nonfree > bug against the 100% free distro. thanks for this, now it makes perfect sense. there can be some ambiguity in "are not able to promptly correct", but I think that is negligible and the indicated course of action is OK. ciao p.s. (is there a public git repository of www.gnu.org pages BTW? would make it easier to point out line numbers and propose patches)
