El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 16:36 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:
> I suppose so. I don't see how anything could stop them. Whatever the
> changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could
> revert them if he wants to.
Change te code to the point that it doesn't accept tainted modules,
firmware or reverting the code.
Changing gnewsense to don't accept other (vanilla) kernels.
Change all "minimal as a url" (a browser logo, a mp3 player, a jpg
viewer, etc etc from gnewsense. Change gnewsense to don't allow this
stuff.
Don't allow the user also to browse to internet non-free webs (you can
blacklist or filter), or change messages whit non-free mail clients.
Also it should have two repositories: GPL and nonGPL but compatible
software, as the LICENSES page of the FSF.
Then, we will see how many people will use your "recomendable"
distribution.
> Not at all. The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
> non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
> software. gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
> kegitimize them.
The kernel is ready, they have make and modprobe.
Also they have teras of shit in .deb or .bin
> It's not the point to _stop_ users from doing anything. Thus, while
> it's a fact that gNewSense users can reinstall the blobs if they want
> to, that doesn't affect the point.
It is not the point, but what you recomends is a castration project.
May be i am i, or may be i am not i. Or may it isn't, or it is.
Goodbye or hello.
