Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one?

[MJ Ray]

Bob Ham <address@hidden>
> On 2013-02-20 01:46, MJ Ray wrote:
> > it's not clear who controls trisquel.  [...]
> > Where is it?  Who are its members?
> 
> I don't have answers to these questions I'm afraid.  [...]
> If you seek more detailed answers about the organisation and its 
> finances, the main developer is Ruben Rodriguez <address@hidden> 
> and I'm sure he'll answer questions.

I'll just stick with supporting projects you don't have to beg
for basic organisational openness.

> > Even at a quick look, I spotted one false-positive: 9wm.
> 
> If the 9wm package is not free software then this is a bug.  You can 
> notify the Trisquel developers by filing a bug report and they will 
> remove the package.

No, it appears I can't.  Trisquel does not seem to allow people who
fail eyetests to file bug reports.

By the way, you've got it backwards: 9wm is MIT-style but has been
removed anyway.  It used to be under a more debatable licence, but
still free software AFAIK.

> If an installer does not offer the possibility of installing some 
> non-free firmware, is it "concealing" that non-free firmware from the 
> user?  Or is it respecting the user's desire to not be offered an 
> invitation to the choking world of proprietary software?

Nice straw man.  Debian's installer has to have a firmware loader
anyway (some firmware is free software) and so any fully-working
installer must "offer the possibility" else it would not be free
software.  Some makes it harder than others.

So what does trisquel do if there is non-free-firmware-only hardware
present?  Just silently pretend it doesn't exist and waste the users'
time as they try to debug the apparently non-detected device, instead
of warning them it's not useful in the sunny world of free software?

And while I'm at this and everyone besides Bob and me is ignoring
these emails, the other dividing line between me and trisquel, besides
disability discrimination, ubuntu-chasing and cabal rule, is that
trisquel accepts non-free-software documentation, using a weaker
standard for "free documentation" that the debian project rejected.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/