On 03/23/2018 11:26 AM, KRT Listmaster wrote: > That's a good point, thanks for pointing it out, it might indeed be > worth removing. Questions: should this criterion be applied across the > board? How does this differ from say, the PureOS website having a > link to the Purism website in the footer, which mentions plenty of > non-free software, including a tutorial on how to enable their own > non-free repo. Just curious....
all good questions - more than anything, i want to see *all* of the rules applied equally across *all* software projects, large and small, rich or poor, past present and future - what strikes me as notable here is that (as i understand) the main gripe the FSF has with debian is not so much that it hosts non-free repos (they are clearly isolated after-all); but that they intentionally direct users to them and instructs on how to use them on their website - ive looked over the entire pureos website in the past and could find no explicit mention of the non free repos; but if we are to make an issue of the website of this prospective distro (free-slack) sporting external links to non-free repos (or links to external sites on which are found links to non-free repos) then we must, in all fairness, make issue of pureos linking to the puri.sm website which leads me back to my last question to this list from yesterday - namely: "should a distro be grandfathered in all perpetuity once endorsed with no further scrutiny of their on-going practices?" - the proper thing to do in such cases is to report a freedom bug to the distro - but what if they ignore it?[1] as long as we are nit-picking about external links on distro's websites - i also just noticed in the top-most navbar on the pureos front page an icon of a tweeting bird that is a link to https://twitter.com/puri_sm - so on the face of that one can say that pureos, rather than down-playing the association with their commercial patron that hosts it's non-free repos, instead guides users to it (at least indirectly) in multiple ways - not problematic perhaps in itself, because the main distro site has no explicit instruction how to use non-free repos; but as krt says the commercial site does host non-free repos and instructs users on how to access them not to harp on that point - but i mention the tweeting bird because i know that parabola for one, takes great care to remove all such corporate logos rather than even hint at endorsing them - for example, when firefox v57 was released and it was noticed that iceweasel v57 shown huge "quick-link" buttons with various website logos chosen by mozilla on everyone's "new tab" page (of youtube, google, twitter, and facebook IIRC) forcefully replacing where normally your pinned "favorites" might be; this was reported as a bug the very same day and those links were removed the same day - parabola would never knowingly direct users to any website running non-free SAAS or that requires non-free javascript to function; especially not intentionally on the main page of the website - there is even an open ticket to remove the "awesome" fonts package merely because it includes such logos[2] as glyphs i just wanted to add that to underline that most of the FSDG distros do seem to take very diligently to the task of avoiding to steer users in the direction of proprietary software; but others seem to be very cavalier about it - im not sure if parabola really needs to quite as strict as they are; but i would very much like to see all FSDG distros take some unified stance on such issues, whatever that stance may be - that is why i hope the review guide page[3] will be used as a consensus across distros on how to interpret the less defined caveats of the FSDG [1]: https://tracker.pureos.net/T57 [2]: https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1648 [3]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FSDG_Review_Guide
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature