[Top][All Lists]

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

[GNU-linux-libre] self-hosting clause (was: Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation)

From: Jaromil
Subject: [GNU-linux-libre] self-hosting clause (was: Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 09:09:22 +0200
User-agent: Jaro Mail <>

Thanks everyone for your efforts!

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016, Joshua Gay wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:28 PM, Dima Krasner wrote:
> > 
> > What about not self-hosting distros, built using another 100% free distro?
> The self-hosting requirement and the small system distribution
> exception are part of the "Complete Distro" requirement. This
> section will not be effected by the new exception.

there are problems to be corrected in the guidelines in these regards.

Self-hosting is a confusing term. I firmly agree with the substance,
but not the choice of terminology, which suggests it is about
"self-hosting packages"

The definition given of self-hosting is correct:

 A free system distribution should be self-hosting. This means that
 you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the
 system provides you. As a result, a free system distribution cannot
 include free software that can only be built by using nonfree

this is not about 'hosting' but about developing or bootstrapping.
self-bootstrap should be the right term, IMHO. Or something else, but
not self-hosting.

Also note in the first section "Complete Distros" says:
"self-hosting requirement above"
but in fact the requirement is explained below.

> The new exception will be to the section "Commitment to Correct
> Mistakes". This requirement states: "Our requirement is for the
> distribution developers to have a firm commitment to promptly
> correct any mistakes that are reported to them." There is one
> situation where we will find it acceptable if the distribution
> developers are not able to promptly correct a mistake reported to
> them and that is if they can not do this because they are relying
> upon repositories which are hosted by another 100% free distro which
> is also listed on
> <>. In that situation,
> it will be expected that the distro developers will file a nonfree
> bug against the 100% free distro.

thanks for this, now it makes perfect sense.

there can be some ambiguity in "are not able to promptly correct", but
I think that is negligible and the indicated course of action is OK.


p.s.  (is there a public git repository of pages BTW?
would make it easier to point out line numbers and propose patches)

reply via email to

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