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


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.


[1] https://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=project_goals

This email account is used for list management only.

Reply via email to