[GNU-linux-libre] Introducing LibreWRT GNU+Linux

I was reminded that there's been no announcement of LibreWRT on gnu-linux- libre, so here goes a short message... LibreWRT is a completely free GNU+Linux distribution that targets embedded systems such as the Ben Nanonote, ath9k-based WiFi routers, and other hardware that respects your freedom.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Incoming Distros at libreplanet

Sam Geeraerts wrote: > [1] says "please ask the distribution's maintainers if they want to > follow these free software principles. If they do, and they would like > their distribution to be listed here, they should write to > .". That gave me the impression that FSF/GNU had the review > proce

[GNU-linux-libre] Re: conseguir un kernel 100 % libre

Carlos Javier wrote: (Translated to English) > ...we will have no choice but to use a distro with a non-free kernel. On the contrary: Absolutely anyone can live in freedom if they make the effort. That may mean replacing hardware if it requires proprietary user-subjugating software with differen

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] virtualbox-ose-additions, free or not?

IIRC, the license for the Additions do not permit modification, rendering them nonfree. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] virtualbox-ose-additions, free or not?

Nicolás Reynolds wrote .. > > Thanks for replying, but I think that applies for virtualbox PUEL, > which is nonfree altogether, but what about the "Open Source Edition" > (GPL2)? As I understand it, there are two version of VirtualBox (one free, one proprietary) but only one version of the Additi

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Emulators

Sam Geeraerts wrote ... > part of the packages itself also seems non-free (2xSaImmx.asm license) The non-commercial clause certainly makes it non-free. "A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution." [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philos

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Emulators

More about emulators in general, since we've already determined this particular one to have freedom-related problems. > Apparently there are resources ([1], [2]) available to learn how to > write your own game. And if someone were to create one, or have a copy of one of those that Matt mentioned

[GNU-linux-libre] The "Free" Kernel In Debian Squeeze

In light of Debian's recent announcement [1] I and others were interested in how well the Debian folks cleaned up their kernel. I proceeded to grab the source for the Squeeze kernel, ran the linux-libre deblobbing script on it, and then diffed it against the original to see what had changed. The f

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] The "Free" Kernel In Debian Squeeze

John Sullivan wrote .. > If this log shows that there is still nonfree firmware in > the kernel... There does seem to be. For example /Documentation/video4linux/extract_xc3028.pl is still around. The program itself is free software, but its sole purpose appears to be extracting non-free firmwa

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] has dosemu freedom issues?

Henry Jensen wrote: > Hello,. > > a user of my distro asked if we can include dosemu, another user said, that > we can't because dosemu has freedom issues. > > To quote the user: > "the DOS part needs OpenWatcom (OSS, but NOT libre) or TurboC/TurboC++ > (gratis not libre) to build." The "DOS pa

[GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

Parabola is a GNU/Linux distro that claims to be a fully free copy of Arch. In reviewing it I have some concerns: 1. The Parabola developers perform no rebranding of any kind. This results in the installer claiming to the "Arch Linux". I've also found that the GRUB menu lists it as "Arch Linux"

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: > you hit a known bug on our repo that we're > working to solve. Ah; so including kernel26-2.6.36.2-1.src.tar.gz, with its non-free bits, is a bug. Good. :) > our own build scripts are here [0], and kernel's is here [1], where you can > find that the linux sources are be

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

Joshua Ismael wrote: > Archlinux has an automatic building system in wich you > provide some information and the script automatically > build them. > > For Parabola GNU/Linux we provide scripts for deblobing > while building so anyone can compile it's linux-libre kernel > from the vanilla source.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Smartphones and freedom

> Using the first google android developer phone, the ADP1 or even the > htc dream, you could make/receive calls using only free software. Didn't they still have the proprietary GSM firmware though? There is a project [1] working to create a free software replacement for that, and the Neo Freer

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] IRC Channel?

Graziano wrote: > Personally I disagree. > > Do we need *another* irc channel? > We already have many similar ones. > > IMHO this mailing list is a better tool. Yes -- if for no other reason than the conversations and decisions are archived. :)

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Smartphones and freedom

Jaromil wrote .. > my problem with android OS is that, besides it not being free and not > being freeable also in my opinion, it uses Java language which i also > dislike very much.. :) > > so what i was looking recently into was Maemo, especially because > Jebba (BLAG's old chap) got involved in

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibreWRT : A 100% FOSS GNU/Linux-libre Distro

Thanks, Jaromil. It appears that there are a few different issues going on. It looks like you're trying to compile FreeWRT, not LibreWRT. Our project is located at http://librewrt.org. Even if you turn your attention to LibreWRT, it looks like the device you're referring to requires proprietary

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibreWRT : A 100% FOSS GNU/Linux-libre Distro

Jaromil wrote: > Jason: is openfwwf already in LibreWRT? it seems that openfwwf > supports the Asus WL500g series. Not currently, but it could be added. We're getting ready to do a new release on March 19th at the upcoming LibrePlanet 2011 [1]. It's too late for that, I think, but perhaps for our

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] chromium not free?

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote .. > Does this mean you cannot have the freedom to modify this information > file? It doesn't specifically say that, no... only that "you may recompile and redistribute." Nothing more. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] chromium not free?

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote .. > Nevertheless, it says "all rights reserved". Doesn't that mean that all > other right not specifically mentioned are reserved? Yes, but it's not due to that satement. With today's copyright law, "All Rights Reserved" is the default state of things -- automatically, just

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

Sam Geeraerts wrote: > In gNewSense we rebrand at least the highly visible things in the > standard desktop install, e.g. GRUB, usplash, GDM, Gnome, package > manager. I think it's enough to fulfill FSDG. Karl Berry wrote: > I agree. > > Parabola people, can you follow that lead, please? Nicolás

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] How do you handle references to non-free softwarein public forums?

Henry Jensen wrote .. > If it occurs at the forum of a FSDG compliant distro that now and then > non-free software is mentioned, how do you handle this? I think gNewSense does this pretty well by setting Community Guidelines [1] that everyone is expected to follow. Take a look at number 5. In my

[GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

can peruse them all, just for fun. I'm writing to request screenshots from those who want to participate. They don't need to be GUI-ified. It wouldn't necessarily be bad to show an Emacs window or shell or whatever once in a while. :) -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key:

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: > I can contribute with some of the loongson port, and I guess the > default tty and several DEs can be there too :) Great -- the more the merrier, in my opinion :) -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key: 47486962 signature.asc Description: This is a dig

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

"circonstancial" > rythm than a periodic one. There probably won't be a new release every time a new screenshot is swapped in, but that doesn't matter. -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key: 47486962 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

hots for gNS if desired. Yes, please. :) -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key: 47486962 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

Rubén Rodríguez wrote: > * Does it render the program non-free? Sam Geeraerts wrote .. > I think so. If you put Firefox with branding on a Trisquel CD then you > (or anyone else) can't sell that CD, as I understand it. That seems to be exactly what it's saying: "If you want to distribute the unc

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

Ruben asked: > * How does it affect the software license it ships under? Sam Geeraerts replied: > You mean the copyright license? AFAIK it doesn't, because they are separate things. Firefox is available under a disjunctive tri-licensing scheme [1]: The Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or late

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

What? Is is absolutely source code. In a way, they are forks from upstream. They address the problematic areas of the upstream software that concern the free software community that upstream doesn't want to address. GNU Icecat, for example, can be used without ever thinking about Mozilla's trad

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] TeXLive auditing

>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "...it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from re

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

I noticed that the website makes several references to ConnochaetOS as a "Linux" distribution, rather than GNU/Linux. One example is here [1] but there are others. Also, is suggesting that people change their kernel to one with proprietary software something that should be suggested [2], even w

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen wrote: > So "free software" and "open source" are considered as the same > community at the FSFE. But ConnochaetOS isn't requesting an endorsement from FSFE. Sam Geeraerts wrote: > The explanation about booting with a floppy [1] recommends the Plop boot > manager, which is non-free.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote > The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would > think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's Er; is't actually: Exactly! :) > For example, if I tell someone who is unfamiliar with free software > "With ope

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Non-FSDG endorsements by FSF

Henry Jensen wrote: > The BSD daemon > OpenBSDs "Puffy" > Thunderbird .and OpenOffice and Tux (as opposed to Freedo, the mascot of linux-libre.) The additional problem with "Thunderbird" is that it's not free software since it's subject to Mozilla's trademark policy, which goes too far by requir

[GNU-linux-libre] unzip

While examining the unzip source code I found this clause in the file match.c: > Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, > or redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are > included unmodified, that it is not sold for profit, and that this copy-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues in lame, cdrkit, SDL, foomatic-filters, freepascal, unzip

Karl Goetz wrote: > Annoyingly, I keep feeling like I *have* seen this before, but can't > remember where or when. Within gNewSense? > Jason, do you still have a fossology instance? I do. > Do you have any hits for this? I don't have the entire gNewSense repository loaded. So far I only see i

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues in lame, cdrkit, SDL, foomatic-filters, freepascal, unzip

Karl Goetz wrote: > Any idea how long? I estimate +/- a week to crunch through everything. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues in lame, cdrkit, SDL, foomatic-filters, freepascal, unzip

I also mentioned this to the upstream folks: http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=20200 signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Nicolás Reynolds wrote .. > Hi, the update from thunderbird 3 to 7 is late at Parabola because we can't > find a way to modify the extension URL[1] to not show the default recommended > addons page. > > If you know how to do it please do, otherwise you can vote up this question[0] > so thunderbird

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote .. > I cannot find that folder or the file you mention. I was working from the Thunderbird 7.0.1 source code: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/7.0.1/source/thunderbird-7.0.1.source.tar.bz2 signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote .. > Is this the compete path or is it part? The file thunderbird-7.0.1.source.tar.gz unpacks to the directory comm-release. So /mail/app/profile/all-thunderbird.js is the full path once you're inside the comm-release directory. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Quiliro Ordóñez stated: > I don't have that directory or that file on the Arch binary. It used to > be the one we modified but it no longer exits in the binary. So Arch has modified it from upstream? I'm afraid I can't help then, other to say that the URL must exist somewhere within the program ri

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] virtual private servers that can run a free distribution

Sam Geeraerts wrote .. > Is corehost.us not included because of false modisty or does it really > not qualify? I was never clear why corehost.us didn't offer things like Trisquel, etc. as part of their virtual and dedicated server options. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[GNU-linux-libre] Linux & GPLv3

There was a recent discussion about the Linux kernel and GPLv3 on a mailing list and it made me wonder how much stuff is licensed under v2 only terms. So I fed Linux-libre 3.1.4 to FOSSology so I can look for things that would get in the way of moving to v3. Not that Linus ever would, but perhap

[GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS

Has anyone else taken a look at this GNU/Linux distribution? It took me longer than I had planned but I eventually made my way through all of the ConnochaetOS packages and I think that the meet the FSF's criteria at this point. The exception is calling themselves "open source" rather than free s

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibreWRT free distro?

Ineiev asked: > Is it self-hosting? I'm not sure that the self-hosting requirement makes sense in this case because emedded devices typically do not have the resources to compile their own software. It's usually done on a more capable system and then copied to the device afterward. In the case of

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Fwd: Please inform free distro maintainers

Karl Goetz wrote .. > This would mean adding text to a number of images which can't be > translated without shipping a new background image per language. I > question whether thats really what we should be doing - it feels quite > imperialist (to me). It seems to me that it doesn't (necessarily) n

[GNU-linux-libre] Working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment

In case anyone hadn't seen this. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Gnuplot

Alexandru Cojocaru wrote .. > Is Gnuplot really Free Software? > Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to > distribute the complete modified source code. Modifications are to > be distributed as patches to the released version. I seem to recall that other programs hav

[GNU-linux-libre] Is This Free?

While reviewing zeroc-ice_3.2.1.orig.tar.gz in gNewSense I found ConvertUTF.cpp and ConvertUTF.h in Ice-3.2.1/src/IceUtil. It says it can be used "in the creation of products supporting the Unicode Standard" but shouldn't you also be able to use in things that don't? /* * Copyright 2001-2004 Unic

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Sam Geeraerts said: > Note that some packages may contain non-free files (e.g. [a]), > regardless of the license of the whole. There are also freedom issues > that are unrelated to the license of the code, e.g. encouraging the use > of non-free software [b]. I see that your packaging guidelines men

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: > I'm reluctant because of the technical and administrative burden it > entails I suppose another option is to leave out problematic packages entirely. Otherwise, welcome to the world of being an FSF-endorsed distro. :) > Besides, our package meta-data would probably still r

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès asked: > But, what does "source code" mean here? Does it mean the source that's > made available using the distro tools, such as 'apt-get source'? That's my understanding of it. > What kind of changes are these, typically? Are these changes to debian/ > files (such as adding new

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: > Yes, I understand this, but my question was more about how this occurs > technically. > > My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified > upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they > apply. Do I get it right? Ah, I see. In th

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: > I’ve come up with a plan that will allow Guix to behave similarly [0]. Good good. :) I do have another question about how to apply the FSDG guidelines to Guix. Specifically in the Complete Distros section it mentions that "if using it requires further work or presupposes

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: > I already sent email to webmast...@gnu.org. Webmaster gave me > instructions to send email to gnu-linux-libre ML. Yes - My understanding is that the role of the GNU Webmasters is limited to briefly checking that the distro is a feasible candidate: they should have a clea

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Riley Baird (Orthogonal) asked: > What do we need to evaluate/discuss before it is accepted? I go use it, look it over, see what packages they have and if there is any low-hanging fruit like stuff mentioned in [0]. Grabbing the source code for packages and auditing them is also needed - looking f

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: > Hello, > > My name is Shintaro Shinozaki who is lead developer of GdNewHat > project. We are currently maintaining GNU/Linux-libre system > distribution and RPM repositories without non-free packages. So, > we would like to join gnu-linux-libre community and request

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Is anyone interested in helping to further review GdNewHat? Please let me know and I can arrange for you to have access to my FOSSology instance.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] withdraw request for endorsement for GdNewHat.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: > I would like to withdraw request for endorsement for GdNewHat > because I decided to give help to restart BLAG distro and > close GdNewHat project at the end of current release in order > to shift development from binary base distro to source one. > > I would like to th

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for GFSD evaluation for ProteanOS

I've been keeping an eye on ProteanOS and haven't found any issues. It seems that it meets criteria.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Endorsed distro review for LibreCMC

Joshua Gay wrote: > I received a release of corresponding source on a disk from the > maintainer. Is it version 1.2? If so I have the same CD and fed everything on it to my FOSSology instance for analysis. In librecmc-1.2.tar.bz2 inside dl/cmake-2.8.12.2.tar.gz is Utilities/ xml/ docbook-4.5/ e

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] CAcert root certificate non-free?

Luke Shumaker: > I'm with Parabola GNU/Linux-libre, and I have doubt that we can > continue packaging the CAcert root certificate. > > It was pointed out that in 2010 Fedora Legal found[0] CAcert's "Root > Distribution License"[1] to be non-free; with a usage restriction. How does this compare wi

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing the GNU system for FSDG compliance

Ludovic Courtès said: > There are still important limitations [1] that make it unsuitable as a > production system or for newcomers, but OK (and even pretty cool, I > dare say ;-)) as a hacker’s system. > > So I wonder if now would be a good time to start reviewing it for FSDG > compliance. > > WDY

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird asked: > What part of their description is untrue? One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3 as a restriction. If you listen to Tom Preston-Werner's (GitHub co-founder) anti-GPL keynote from OSCON his position on the GPL will become clear and shouldn't be su

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird said: > is a restriction The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Framing copyleft as a "restriction" is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird said: > For someone who hasn't decided whether they care about free software > or open source (or both), it would help them to make their mind up > without feeling that they are reading propaganda. Framing copyleft as a restriction is often propaganda used by the anti-copyleft crowd th

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GNU/Linux-libre from source code for Loongson 3A (1.3)

Christophe Jarry said: > In an attempt to build a simple GNU/Linux-libre distribution > targetted at Loongson 3A machines, I wrote a document that > describes how to build a basic GNU/Linux-libre operating system. You might be interested in collaborating with [0] who also target Loongson CPUs (

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] OpenJDK international use restrictions

Their message seems to indicate that they're blocking access from certain IP ranges. This tells me that they're only talking of what they do to comply with U.S. export laws, not making it a part of the license. Hence, let's go back to the FSF's Free Software Definition. The whole thing is relevant

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs

Riley Baird wrote .. > So, it is with great excitement that I announce today LibertyBSD. I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0] instead of starting another free BSD? > LibertyBSD is a fork of OpenBSD that contains only free software. I've not been able to examine

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs

Michał Masłowski asked: > Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful > on servers? Riley Baird replied: > Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other > unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for > desktop users, but not

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

Ineiev wrote: > I'm not sure the exception should apply to it. Yeah, the idea was that it was for embedded distros that target machines with insufficient storage, RAM & CPU power to compile their own software themselves. The exception doesn't make much sense outside of the embedded world.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

fr33domlover asked: > What if a distro is not self-hosting, but can be built from another > fully free distro which is on the FSF's list of free distros? An exception to self-hosting is addressed in the GNU FSDG already. This was added for clarity due to LibreWRT, which targets embedded devices

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

fr33domlover asked: > a tiny distro for old hardware x86_64 machines, which are one of the stated targets, are not old. Imagine a 12-core Intel Xeon. > I'd just like to understand why something with minimal benefit It's not clear to me why you're reluctant to provide easy access to a compiler &

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME

Jean Louis wrote .. > I have made mistake, I wanted to say: > > there is NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF FREE ROM that was made for > MAME that is on their website. Not outside of MAME website. But it shows that a given program can have multiple uses. Chris Webber has a well-written reply to a s

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME

J.B. Nicholson wrote .. > Julian Marchant wrote: > > As far as I know, all Flash objects are non-libre. > > How do you figure this? I think they are referring to the ActionScript code [0] to construct the player (or whatever else.) It is usually not free which means that you're still running n

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ?= Usage of NINTENDO=?UTF-8?Q?®?=,=?UTF-8?Q? MAME® and other trademarks

Jean Louis said: > Considering all of the above, I propose that NINTENDO® trademark is > removed from ALL free software distribution as such. You started a similar thread about this on the Guix mailing list too. For example I think where, in Guix, the package for Mupen64Plus says that it "is a

[GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

J.B. Nicholson wrote: > I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is > available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an > x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere. That is probably a valid point. I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros should probably not

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen 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 bei

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Ah, I managed to find the ones I was thinking of: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00033.html http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00032.html

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

The FSF can, of course, set whatever criteria/conditions they want in order to put their name behind something. While I don't pretend to speak for the FSF the things I point out are things that, based on past experience, are problematic points to address if the end goal is indeed to get the FSF to

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen wrote .. > The section "Debian GNU/Linux" mentions 3 problems with Debian The common distros page is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all problems that exist with a given distro. It even says so on the page: "We do not aim for completeness; once we know some reasons we can't

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen wrote .. > Yes, thank you for linking to the messages. RMS mentions a change > "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files" instead of failing. That was not the primary reason for linking to that message. Pay attention to his very first statement: > It sounds like the new Debi

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen wrote .. > This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source, > which is located at > https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is > fixed now. Thank you, although even with this change I still cannot account for all of the source code for al

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser

It seems to have redistribution problems similar to Firefox, along with the misunderstanding that free software isn't about cost. It can be modified, and then a re-branded version could be distributed free of those problems, but this is also true of Firefox so I'm not sure what benefit there is to

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser

Oh, and we also have similar efforts with things like GNU IceCat and Trisquel's Abrowser. It probably makes more sense to work together and not fragment efforts by starting yet another modified version of a Firefox-based browser.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Freedom issue, originally posted on Parabola bug tracker] Trademarked logos

8jxvrx+1bfu4ijuj3e68, trademarks aren't necessarily a problem. Yes, there is potential (add emphasis on that word there) for problems. I'll include by reference how Mozilla's trademark policy goes too far by including distribution restrictions going against freedom #2, but that is a specific proble

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Using the Linux Liberation Scripts

Gpast_panama wrote .. > What modifications would typically be required to port it to an > alternative kernel tree, if the former? It depends on what has changed. As an example, if you were to look at what Trisquel does, they have modified the deblob scripts to catch additional things that Canoni

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

Hello, I wanted to check in and report that I've not yet found any problems to report. I'm wondering if anyone else is looking into Hyperbola and can share if they've identified anything?

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Henry Jensen asked: > So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based > kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't? As Donald implied there is a lot of work involved in review a distros so I imagine that this was missed. A primary difference is a willingness to correct mi

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there is an idea for how to enable the loading of the proprietary firmware without also steering people to it when it's not present. A partial patch for it already exists in the linux-libre mailing list archives but it's a hard problem and hasn't been fully

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

It's probably best to run it by Alexandre Oliva. I imagine that there will still be challenges with this; he'd be the best person to explain them. It's not an easy problem to solve or it would have been by now.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

Therese Godefroy via RT wrote .. > Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be listed > in free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a major distro which > itself isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based on Fedora > 10 (2010). That's already a thing: One

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

bill-auger wrote .. > where is this ticket that you reference? gnu.org #1262331 - it is not > on the CC list - is that a on public tracker? It's a ticketing system used to handle certain email addresses like webmast...@gnu.org (and more), which seems to be where the person originally wrote to.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

bill-auger wrote .. > then the obvious question would be if the OP will see these replies if > they are not subscribed to this mailing list They wouldn't. I imagine that the webmasters will handle the replying of email that's sent to them? Maybe this was sent as food for thought or something?

[GNU-linux-libre] PureOS non-free repo

Alexandre Oliva wrote .. > It certainly sounds odd. But, honestly, right now I'm more > concerned that updates for PureOS seem to have been published in a > non-free repo. Specifically, non-free microcode for CPUs affected > by Spectre. Surely we don't mean to endorse distros that do that, > do

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

> i must say though that it did not address what is the actual > behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, I thought it did. > why is it not possible to simply change or suppress the error > message printed to the log or to later or periodically scrub the > logs of the naught

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program, especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they might be handled.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

Therese Godefroy via RT wrote .. > I would be delighted to comment out Blag until it resurrects. The free distro page is supposed to be maintained by the FSF's Licensing and Compliance Lab, not the GNU Webmasters. Given that the GNU Webmasters aren't supposed to add new distros [0] I would take

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

Jean Louis, the idea of having volunteers do the reviewing before the FSF gets involved helps spare their limited resources. Also, having more eyes looking into things is surely better than fewer ones (i.e., if it were only FSF staff.)

  1   2   >