[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation

From: Joshua Gay
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:35:45 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0

>> No, but it's directly related to being actively maintained, which is
>> a condition for endorsing as a fully free distro; and this
>> endorsement is exactly what we discuss.
> I disagree with applying this criteria, even worst when based on
> narrow yet blurred definitions as "self hosted repository".
> A recent example of the problem caused is here:
> where RLSD, an excellent distro which is 100% free, has been excluded
> on the basis of not being "self hosted" while its nature would
> perfectly justify cross-compilation.

I think that in situations such as with Uruk and with RLSD, if just one
criteria remains which is not being met, but it is still a 100% free
distro (or a derivative of a 100% free distro), then this list should
email address@hidden explaining the situation and the FSF and RMS
should check to see if the criteria should perhaps be adjusted to make
room for another useful free distro. This is how we went about adding
the small distros section to the list.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]