On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 20:49 +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:57:00AM -0500, Robert Call wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 10:57 -0500, bill-auger wrote: > > > On 01/19/2018 03:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > hi > > > > What about add uruk gnu/linux to gnu free list > > > > I asck this Questions again > > > > Let's finish this long long story > > > > > > > > > > the FSDG says to request evaluation by sending an email to > > > <[email protected]> with a description of the system and a link > > > to > > > the > > > distro web page > > > > > > > Responding in this way does not help since they had already done > > this. > > There have been a few threads already about Uruk GNU/Linux. I'm > > still > > quite infuriated that the Free Software Foundation is giving > > special > > treatment for some over others. At lest Uruk uses the linux-libre > > kernel and they did set up their own repository that they control. > > While they still leverage Trisquel's repositories, I could > > understand > > that it does take quite a bit in terms of infrastructure to fully > > maintain a standalone repository. The FSF should be willing to help > > if > > there is a problem with a lack of infrastructure. If I need to > > reach > > out to Uruk and try to remedy this issue I will. > > > > If the FSF continues to pick favorites, I personally would have to > > withdraw my support of the Free Software Foundation. > > Don't rush with such statements, I do not see > which facts did you observe that "FSF is picking > favorites"? > I did not "rush" with making my statement and I fully stand behind what I said. Maybe before bashing me, you should follow the mailing list a bit more closely.
For example, PureOS was added to the endorsed distro list even with several long standing issues (mainly the usage of the debain kernel which advertises missing non-free firmware blobs). ConnochaetOS[1] was submitted for review was denied based on the fact that they were using the Debian deblobbing scripts vs. the linux-libre deblobbing scripts. Is this fair? I have seen Uruk given a runaround for quite a while now and from what I had seen they addressed most (I might be wrong) long standing issues. I don't see anyone else standing up for Uruk or try to move this process forward. At least give Uruk a technical reason why they can't be endorsed instead of ignoring them. > Did you contact personally somebody from FSF and > asked what is wrong? Did they answer to you? > I have talked with a few people at the FSF over the years and all of my concerns have fallen on deaf ears. A month ago I made my concerns known to RMS (including this) and got nowhere. I personally am not willing to support an organization that drifts away from its mission, picks favorites and makes critical compromises in regards to software freedom. [1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-12/msg000 04.html -- Robert Call (Bob) [email protected] https://bobcall.me
