On Jan 20, 2018, bill-auger <[email protected]> wrote: > i must say though that it did not address what is the actual > behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable,
I didn't try to address that, and I'm afraid I don't know the answer myself, not having looked at the Debian kernel in detail any further than to get slightly acquainted with the general approach. I'm told it is Free Software, which is good, but I had got the idea that it did not meet the GNU FSDG until PureOS, AFAIK carrying the (Debian main only?) bits of the Debian kernel, made the endorsed distro list. I'll defer judgment and clarification to the FSF. If I had to guess, I'd say the fact that the distro controls the hotplug script, the repositories, the package installer, and whatnot, places them at an advantage over what we have to do in GNU Linux-libre to ensure it behaves within the FSDG, and maybe the requesting and logging of firmware, even non-Free, is not deemed a problem because the other system components take care of them, and the non-Free bits are not available for installation anyway, unless other repos containing those bits are configured. But that's just a personal guess. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
