On 08/06/2017 10:37 AM, Jason Self wrote: > Henry Jensen <hjen...@mailbox.org> wrote .. > >> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since >> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links >> to the very same project. > > There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware. > > But even if we consider Slackware, what is being said also be > considered: That page is discussing why Slackware is not acceptable > for adding as an FSF-endorsed distro. > > In comparison, the text I'm referring to is an out-and-out referral to > go *use* it if someone wants a 64-bit version: "If you are looking for > a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are welcome to use the x86_64 > slack-n-free repo and have a look at the FreeSlack project." > > In one case, the statement (on gnu.org) is about why Slackware is not > acceptable. The other is a statement to go use it if they want 64-bit. > These are not the same. An FSF-endorsed distro shouldn't steer people > to using ones that are not.
This is a misunderstanding, I think. There is an indirect reference (via a weblink) at the end of the Slackware section on the gnu.org when it says "There is an unofficial list of nonfree software in Slackware.", the words "unofficial list" link to http://freeslack.net/ which has evolved beyond a mere list and is now a fully installable distro. So, when ConnochaetOS suggests using "it", they mean FreeSlack, which has every intention of being a fully-libre distro with downloadable and installable iso files while adhering to the GNU-FSDG [1]. The link to the same project website (which cross-suggests ConnochaetOS for 32-bit users) is just worded poorly on the gnu.org page. Neither is suggesting the use of Slackware proper. However, both links ARE referring to a fully-libre software project, regardless of current FSF-endosement status. - KRT [1] https://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=project_goals -- This email account is used for list management only.