Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[Henry Jensen]

Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" <address@hidden>:

> 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.