bill-auger <[email protected]> wrote .. > which leads me back to my last question to this list from yesterday - > namely: "should a distro be grandfathered in all perpetuity once > endorsed with no further scrutiny of their on-going practices?"
I don't think that this is intended. One of the FSF's high priority projects is "Help GNU/Linux distributions be committed to freedom." In that entry on the high priority list one of the things that they mention is to explore the list of free GNU/Linux distributions, and contribute to them. Surely "contributions" could include checking them for FSDG compliance, right? And, their page about volunteering suggests people "volunteer as a "Freedom Verifier" to check whether a given distribution contains only free software, so it can be included on the list of free distributions." Surely that's not just new ones to add right? Anyway, a lack of reviewing currently-endorsed distros is probably more due to a lack of people power than anything else. After all, look at how hard it's been to handle the backlog. > the proper thing to do in such cases is to report a freedom bug to > the distro - but what if they ignore it?[1] One of the criteria is the FSDG is that the people behind the distro be committed to correcting mistakes. If they ignore freedom bugs then that does not seem very committed to me. There has been precedent to remove distros over freedom problems. Anyone remember Kongoni? Search for it in http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/www/distros/free-distros.html?view=log But, the FSF can't do anything if they don't know about it right? I think that this is probably at least one of the reasons for the GNU Bucks program: To both encourage people to check for stuff and also give the FSF a chance to monitor things. And, giving people GNU Bucks as an encouragement to look at things circles back to my earlier point that I don't think the intention is to ignore distros once they're added. https://www.gnu.org/help/gnu-bucks.en.html
