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
"There is an unofficial list of nonfree software in Slackware.",
the words "unofficial list" link to
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 .
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
This email account is used for list management only.