Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) schrieb "Jason Self" <[email protected]>:
> We're going in circles. We had that discussion before. I pointed to > the earlier messages on this mailing list where RMS had said it > amounted to that in our earier conversation, and how > PureOS was probably an oversight. It doesn't seem fair to point to a > mistake and want it to continue to happen going forward. RMS mail from 7 years ago was vague and sounded that he didn't had all the facts back then (he wrote "it sounds like ..."). The fact that PureOS was endorsed in the meantime indicates that also. I've gone trough the entire history again. So far, the argument that PureOS was a "mistake" or an "oversight" was only made by you (and the PureOS developer on this list objected) PureOS worked for two years with the FSF to become endorsed. I found it hard to believe that they, of all things, didn't look at the kernel. And if even so, in the 3 month that have passed since my intial mail nobody reported this as a freedom bug in the PureOS bug tracker, as you suggested. As long as this isn't accepted as a valid freedom bug by PureOS or the FSF I think the facts are clear.
