Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Am 7. August 2017 03:40:08 MESZ schrieb Jason Self :
>Henry Jensen  wrote ..
>> This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source,
>> which is located at 
>> https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is
>> fixed now.
>
>Thank you, although even with this change I still cannot account for
>all of the source code for all of the binary packages available.
>coreutils for example and many others.


ConnochaetOS consists of 3 repos: the liberated slackware repo, the liberated 
salix repo and the slack-n-free repo. The latter contains only additional 
packages, e.g. replacements for undesired  software in the upstream repos with 
the sources at https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/source/src/. Depending 
from which repo a program originates you find the corresponding sources at the 
source directory of this repo. Coreutils originates from the liberated 
slackware repo, so the sources are at 
https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/salix/i486/slackware-14.2/source/a/coreutils/

Greetings,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > "If you maintain a distibution that follows the Free System
  > Distribution Guidelines and would like to be listed here, please write
  > to "

  > If this is wrong then it should be corrected.


I will work out where we want to ask people to apply to.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Henry Jensen  wrote ..
> This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source,
> which is located at 
> https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is
> fixed now.

Thank you, although even with this change I still cannot account for
all of the source code for all of the binary packages available.
coreutils for example and many others.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Henry Jensen  wrote ..
 
> Yes, thank you for linking to the messages. RMS mentions a change 
> "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files" instead of failing. 

That was not the primary reason for linking to that message. Pay
attention to his very first statement:

> It sounds like the new Debian version of Linux will recommend
> specific nonfree firmware programs, which is undesirable.

The thing he's referring to in that statement is the logging. Feel
free to write him if you don't believe it.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Ivan Zaigralin]

On Monday, August 07, 2017 00:10:39 Henry Jensen wrote:
> Am Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > But if your decision is to continue to push back on this and leave the
> > request_firmware calls in place and unmodified, then I think my review
> > of ConnochaetOS is over.
> 
> That is, of course, for you to decide. However, I didn't found any
> official statement (meaning a statement at fsf.org or gnu.org), that
> writing names of proprietary firmware files in a log file are rendering
> a distro not recommendable or a software as not usable in a fully free
> distro. Some random messages on this list are not official
> statements.

Well said. I think, if ConnOS makes the leap towards official FSDG 
certification, it will be worthwhile to explain the difference between Debian 
kernel packages and the ConnOS kernel package.

Just because the kernel is capable of loading a firmware file which bears the 
symbolic name of an extant nonfree firmware blob, it's hard to see how FSDG is 
violated. The problem with Debian is that their "free" installer will 
literally prompt for a USB with nonfree drivers at installation time if one of 
these turd-chips is detected. From what I learned about ConnOS, its kernel 
package does no such thing. In the absence of the (nonfree) firmware file it 
simply moves on with a terse message in the log, stating that file was not 
found.

I personally think the difference is huge, even though the kernel is deblobbed 
in a similar way. If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how one can 
argue that ConnOS guides users toward nonfree firmware.

I was also amused to find out that Linux-libre decided to ignore RMS' 
suggestion and blacklist the blobs rather than obfuscate the calls :) It 
certainly helps to explain ConnOS' stance on why the Libre-linux approach is 
not that great either. I personally think that either approach is perfectly 
sufficient, and neither is heavy-handed, but I can also totally appreciate 
when a maintainer opts towards the Debian way for technical reasons. 

And here's another thought, besides the point raised above, but still 
pertinent: who in a 1000 years would use ConnOS and its deblobbed kernel in 
conjunction with nonfree firmware? Crazy people? ConnOS is the poor robot's 
Slackware, no offense meant. It is a fact of life that Slackware to this day 
has no close-source components besides the kernel, so anyone dropping a 
nonfree kernel into ConnOS (or FXP/Freenix, same deal) is not thinking 
straight: they are essentially getting the stock Slackware back, after jumping 
through a series of flaming hoops. Sure, there are things like xv and xgames 
and fractint in Slackware, but they and all the other nonfree packages are 
museum pieces at this point in history. When it comes to users' freedom, they 
make virtually no difference in practical terms. OK, so there's also mozilla, 
but again, free-e-fied ice* packages are available from various binary repos, 
so the objections about the way the kernel is deblobbed are missing the point.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[KRT Listmaster]

On 08/06/2017 10:37 AM, Jason Self wrote:
> Henry Jensen  wrote ..
> 
>> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
>> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
>> to the very same project.
> 
> There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware.
> 
> But even if we consider Slackware, what is being said also be
> considered: That page is discussing why Slackware is not acceptable
> for adding as an FSF-endorsed distro.
> 
> In comparison, the text I'm referring to is an out-and-out referral to
> go *use* it if someone wants a 64-bit version: "If you are looking for
> a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are welcome to use the x86_64
> slack-n-free repo and have a look at the FreeSlack project."
> 
> In one case, the statement (on gnu.org) is about why Slackware is not
> acceptable. The other is a statement to go use it if they want 64-bit.
> These are not the same. An FSF-endorsed distro shouldn't steer people
> to using ones that are not.

This is a misunderstanding, I think.  There is an indirect reference
(via a weblink) at the end of the Slackware section on the gnu.org when
it says

"There is an unofficial list of nonfree software in Slackware.",

the words "unofficial list" link to

http://freeslack.net/

which has evolved beyond a mere list and is now a fully installable
distro.  So, when ConnochaetOS suggests using "it", they mean FreeSlack,
which has every intention of being a fully-libre distro with
downloadable and installable iso files while adhering to the GNU-FSDG [1].

The link to the same project website (which cross-suggests ConnochaetOS
for 32-bit users) is just worded poorly on the gnu.org page.  Neither is
suggesting the use of Slackware proper.  However, both links ARE
referring to a fully-libre software project, regardless of current
FSF-endosement status.

- KRT

[1] https://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=project_goals

-- 
This email account is used for list management only.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

The FSF can, of course, set whatever criteria/conditions they want in
order to put their name behind something.

While I don't pretend to speak for the FSF the things I point out are
things that, based on past experience, are problematic points to
address if the end goal is indeed to get the FSF to put their name
behind ConnochaetOS. (As one example, the consensus on this mailing
list for years has been that the notion that the Linux kernel logging
firmware names when they're missing is not desirable. I've even
provided references to that effect. The list archives may very well
provide other such references.)

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Ivan Zaigralin]

On Sunday, August 06, 2017 09:37:16 Jason Self wrote:
> Henry Jensen  wrote ..
> 
> > The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> > the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> > to the very same project.
> 
> There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware.

You do not consider a web link a reference? Both the cited FSF page and the 
FSFLA Linux-libre page link to the FreeSlack project.

> But even if we consider Slackware, what is being said also be
> considered: That page is discussing why Slackware is not acceptable
> for adding as an FSF-endorsed distro.
> 
> In comparison, the text I'm referring to is an out-and-out referral to
> go *use* it if someone wants a 64-bit version: "If you are looking for
> a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are welcome to use the x86_64
> slack-n-free repo and have a look at the FreeSlack project."

Please do not confuse FreeSlack with Slackware, the names are not THAT 
similar, and if you read the statement on the front wiki page, you will see 
FreeSlack is a documentation project which is NOT affiliated with Slackware 
project, and its distribution arm is free software. The distribution name may 
be A BIT confusing, which is why we are in the process of changing it to FXP 
or Freenix or something else, which is up to FSF at this point. We applied for 
FSDG certification in March 2016, and so far we haven't heard any suggestions 
from the FSF review team besides changing the name collision, which we agreed 
to do. Since then several months have passed, and we have not heard any 
comment about either "FXP" or "Freenix", leaving us in a kind of a nameless 
limbo. So at present, we think, we have zero outstanding issues with respect 
to FSDG.

> I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros should probably not steer people
> to others that are not?

That would be a gross misrepresentation of the FSDG guidelines. Free 
distributions should not stir people towards non-free software, period. ConnOS 
is free software, which is why here at FreeSlack we think it's OK to mention 
them as an option for x32 arch. The FreeSlack's distribution, FXP, is also 
free software, Linux-libre-powered and without the Debian kernel controversy, 
so of course there are no issues about ConnOS linking to FreeSlack either. 
None of that has any bearing on FSDG compliance.

I would agree that IF a Debian-style kernel SUGGESTS and STIRS users towards 
firmaware blobs, then the kernel should fail the FSDG. I am not in the 
position to comment on the specific kernel used in ConnOS, since I never 
studied that portion.

I am also personally of the opinion that it's OK for an FSDG-compliant 
distribution to suggest an option which is free, although not necessarily 
FSDG-compliant. There's nothing wrong, IMHO, about informing users about 
Debian-style free kernels as viable options as long as the users are warned 
about the blobs. I know not everyone will agree, since this is kind of a gray 
area, but I think you can all understand my reasoning: at some point the user 
should admit some responsibility.

Like RMS said, of course free software will allow you to install and run 
nonfree software, there's no cure for that, and it's not even a tragedy of any 
sort. But we don't declare web browsers nonfree, even though most of the big 
ones, like konqueror, are designed to drop the user into the javascript trap 
by default. We just admit that users should know better than to enable 
javascript on pages they don't trust to serve 100% free software.

There's only so much hand-holding we can do as distro-maintainers, and 
preventing user from exploring viable 100% free-software options such as the 
libre channel of the Debian repository is simply not our job. There's no 
contradiction here, as far as I can see: FSF should not endorse Debian-style 
shenanigans if it doesn't want to, but FSF has no business telling other 
projects, even the one they endorse, to stop mentioning free software 
compilations which themselves fell short of FSDG.







signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Isaac David]

Jaromil  :

as far as I know there is some historical interest in BLAG motivating
this restoration: it was the first 100% libre distro (AFAIK).


that would be ututo iirc. although to be fair i could be mistaken by
virtue of conflating the state of being free with the state of being
recognized as free by the FSF.

--
Isaac David
GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jean Louis]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 09:37:16AM -0700, Jason Self wrote:
> In one case, the statement (on gnu.org) is about why Slackware is not
> acceptable. The other is a statement to go use it if they want 64-bit.
> These are not the same. An FSF-endorsed distro shouldn't steer people
> to using ones that are not.

I agree so much on that one.

Even I am aware that many people are not aware of
software freedoms and what it means for future.

It requires teaching people in a mild manner with
care for understanding to take place.

> It's not necessary to tell people how to get
> them in order for it to count as an
> inducement. In this case people's log files get
> spammed with "file not found" error messages. If
> memory serves this matter has also come up with
> RMS before too, and he's on board with the name
> scrubbing. All other endorsed distros use
> Linux-libre. Why should ConnochaetOS receive a
> special exemption?

I do not think that ConnochaetOS shall use
Linux-libre, as long as they use fully free Linux
kernel from any party.

I also do not think that a full free GNU
distribution need to use Linux kernel at all, it
just happens at this point that they are using it,
but in future there can as well exist GNU based on
Minix or Hurd or some type of BSD kernels or
others. 

There are obviously very good points in
ConnochaetOS to be included on the list, I wish to
see it.

> - The installer advertises itself as "ConnochaetOS Linux"
> Based on the entry for "Linux system" in the link to Words To Avoid in
> the "Please Avoid Repeating Propaganda and Confusion" part of the GNU
> FSDG this should be changed to GNU/Linux or the Linux reference
> eliminated.

I agree on that one, that is wrong. It refers to
Linux as operating system in that context which is
just contributing to further confusion.

I hope to see more free distributions being
endorsed.

Jean

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Ah, I managed to find the ones I was thinking of:

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00033.html

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00032.html

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

Henry Jensen  wrote ..

> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> to the very same project.

There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware.

But even if we consider Slackware, what is being said also be
considered: That page is discussing why Slackware is not acceptable
for adding as an FSF-endorsed distro.

In comparison, the text I'm referring to is an out-and-out referral to
go *use* it if someone wants a 64-bit version: "If you are looking for
a libre Slackware x86_64 variant you are welcome to use the x86_64
slack-n-free repo and have a look at the FreeSlack project."

In one case, the statement (on gnu.org) is about why Slackware is not
acceptable. The other is a statement to go use it if they want 64-bit.
These are not the same. An FSF-endorsed distro shouldn't steer people
to using ones that are not.

> I have a diferent view. The statement from the FSF at [1] can be
> interpreted in the way, that the de-blobbed Debian Linux kernel is
> regarded as entirely free software.

That deblobbed kernel is indeed free software; this discussion is
solely about the "inducement" part.

> Our installer doesn't do such things.

I'm not discussing the installer.

> Yes, there may be occurrences of  names of proprietary firmware 
> blobs in log files. But they are not recommendations, simply names.
> We do not steer people to this proprietary files, since we are not 
> telling people how to get them.

It's not necessary to tell people how to get them in order for it to
count as an inducement. In this case people's log files get spammed
with "file not found" error messages. If memory serves this matter has
also come up with RMS before too, and he's on board with the name
scrubbing. All other endorsed distros use Linux-libre. Why should
ConnochaetOS receive a special exemption?

I've installed ConnochaetOS in a virtual machine and have also made
these observations:

- I like that the browser has been modified to send people to the FSF
Directory for add-ons. That avoids the matter of steering people to
non-free add-ons.

- I like that the browser sends people to the non-JavaScript version
of DuckDuckGo, eliminating the JavaScript Trap.

- The installer advertises itself as "ConnochaetOS Linux"
Based on the entry for "Linux system" in the link to Words To Avoid in
the "Please Avoid Repeating Propaganda and Confusion" part of the GNU
FSDG this should be changed to GNU/Linux or the Linux reference
eliminated.

- Some of the documentation contains no copyright or licensing
information. An example:
https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/salix/i486/slackware-14.2/Slackware-HOWTO
but this also applies to the speak install and speakup docs files.

According to the FSDG, "all the documentation in a free system
distribution must be released under an appropriate free license." It's
possible that this is already supposed to be free, but just not stated.

The Slackware Howto is also talking of "Slackware Linux" and "the
Linux operating system", which continues the notion of the "Linux
system" mentioned earlier. Further, I'm not sure that sending people
to the Slackware website for further information is the best approach
that an FSF-endorsed distro should take (The Slackware documentation
wiki has a lot of information...)

These may be fixable, depending on the license and if modifications
are allowed.

I've also not been able to locate the source code for the kernel.
https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/source/src/linux/ doesn't have
it even though other directories in the parent appear to have source code.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Jason,

Am Sat, 05 Aug 2017 22:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :

> J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> 
> > I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is
> > available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an
> > x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.  
> 
> That is probably a valid point. I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros  
> should probably not steer people to others that are not?

The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
to the very same project.


> In addition, I think that the documentation at [0] should probably be
> updated to steer people to the Linux-libre deblob scripts (or their
> already deblobbed tarballs?) The fundamental problem is that the
> method used by the Debian Project leaves the request_firmware calls in
> place, resulting in people's system logs being spammed about how the
> proprietary software is missing from their system. Linux-libre's
> deblob scripts handle this by removing code that induces users to
> install non-Free Software.

I have a diferent view. The statement from the FSF at [1] can be
interpreted in the way, that the de-blobbed Debian Linux kernel is
regarded as entirely free software.

The statement at [2] says it is a problem, that 

"the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree firmware files
for the peripherals on the machine." 

Our installer doesn't do such things. Yes, there may be occurrences of
names of proprietary firmware blobs in log files. But they are not
recommendations, simply names. We do not steer people to this
proprietary files, since we are not telling people how to get them.

I don't see that the pure reference to the name of a proprietary
software would be a recommendation. There are many other parts, in
other FSF endorsed distros as well, where names of non-free software
do occur. E.g. many packages names of Trisquel have the name
"ubuntu" in it. If I would do a full text search on any endorsed system
I am sure, that there would be many occurrences of names of proprietary
software.


Greetings,

Henry



[1]https://www.fsf.org/news/debian-squeeze-makes-key-progress-toward-being-a-fully-free-distribution
[2]https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Jean,

Am Sun, 6 Aug 2017 11:02:20 +0300
schrieb Jean Louis :

> I know there is email address for licensing,
> webmasters are webmasters.

Yes, but the page clearly states:

"If you maintain a distibution that follows the Free System
Distribution Guidelines and would like to be listed here, please write
to "

If this is wrong then it should be corrected.

> When preparing any application, you do not want to
> give a burden to the reviewer, you want to prepare
> and demonstrate those factors that reviewer wants
> to see.
> 
> For example, if you are using Linux libre, you
> should state it so, and not wait for reviewer to
> find it out hyrself.
> 
> Maybe you want to demonstrate what you changed in
> the Linux libre kernel.


Since version 14.2 we are not using the GNU linux-libre kernel any more.
We are using Debian's de-blobbing mechanism instead, like it is stated
at [1] and technically explained in detail at [2]


> Apart from those already endorsed distributions,
> in my opinion, the new distributions shall have
> better list of packages, to quickly compare the
> packages or software with already known libre
> issues in other distributions.
> 
> I could not find a list of packages or software
> that Conochaet OS is distributing. Maybe you can
> send me the list? Or maybe you can quickly create
> a page with such list?

Yes, it is at [3]

> On your website, I would also prefer to see more
> explanation on 4 freedoms and meaning of free
> software, so that website teaches people.

It is there at [4] and [1]


> I also did not see much references to licenses.

I am not sure what you mean by "references to licenses". 


> When I read guidelines, I also do not see the
> option, or clear and specific way to report
> problems of nonfree software that is found
> eventually. Something like a bug tracking.

Our bug tracking system was at gna.org. Since Gna services were shut
down recently we haven't a bug tracking system anymore (we also lost
our mailing list). Of course, there is still the possibility to report
bugs via mail. However, the need of a bug tracking system isn't a
requirement as far as the FSDG goes.

Greetings,

Henry



[1] https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/fully-free-what-does-it-mean
[2] https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/deblobbing
[3] https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/packagelist-14.2.txt
[4] https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/purposes

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Jean Louis]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 03:46:45PM +0200, Henry Jensen wrote:
> 
> Am Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:00:20 -0500
> schrieb "J.B. Nicholson" :
> 
> > - there could be resource limitations involved here too: I see on 
> > https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is available for
> > x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an x86_64 libre
> > Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.
> 
> I don't think, that this is a problem. Of course you can run
> ConnochaetOS on any x86_64 machine, The link to the freeslack project
> shouldn't be a problem either, since the page at
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html also links to the
> very same project.

I did not see the link.

I see that Slackware is listed there as one of
distroes not endorsed. 

I do think that a free distro should not direct
users to non-free distroes.

> > By the same token we don't know exactly what you sent to them or when
> > you sent feedback to them. Would you forward a copy of your feedback
> > to them to this mailing list?
> 
> Since this was 7 years ago some of the mail communication may be lost.
> However, there is an old thread oin this mailing list: 
> 
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00026.html

The forum link for bug reporting is not working,
maybe you need some system, or special page or
form to offer to people to submit bugs.

Jean

[GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Jason Self]

J.B. Nicholson wrote:

> I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is
> available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an
> x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.

That is probably a valid point. I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros  
should probably not steer people to others that are not?

In addition, I think that the documentation at [0] should probably be
updated to steer people to the Linux-libre deblob scripts (or their
already deblobbed tarballs?) The fundamental problem is that the
method used by the Debian Project leaves the request_firmware calls in
place, resulting in people's system logs being spammed about how the
proprietary software is missing from their system. Linux-libre's
deblob scripts handle this by removing code that induces users to
install non-Free Software.

[0] https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/deblobbing

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Henry Jensen]

Am Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:00:20 -0500
schrieb "J.B. Nicholson" :

> - there could be resource limitations involved here too: I see on 
> https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is available for
> x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an x86_64 libre
> Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.

I don't think, that this is a problem. Of course you can run
ConnochaetOS on any x86_64 machine, The link to the freeslack project
shouldn't be a problem either, since the page at
https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html also links to the
very same project.

> By the same token we don't know exactly what you sent to them or when
> you sent feedback to them. Would you forward a copy of your feedback
> to them to this mailing list?

Since this was 7 years ago some of the mail communication may be lost.
However, there is an old thread oin this mailing list: 

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00026.html

Greetings,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnu.org "Free GNU/Linux distributions" list updates

[Jean Louis]

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 09:24:13PM +0200, Henry Jensen wrote:
> Hello Jean,
> 
> Am Sat, 5 Aug 2017 21:14:04 +0300
> schrieb Jean Louis :
> 
> > > To be honest, I found the whole procedure of  becoming an endorsed
> > > distro non-transparent. 
> > >  
> > 
> > I have read these pages here:
> > 
> > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
> > 
> > and there is email on how to contact FSF, and FSF
> > is responsive, so I see that whole procedure is
> > very transparent.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is clear how to contact: "please write to "
> 
> However, it is not very clear what happens next. How the distro is
> reviewed, what steps are involved. 
> 
> The page states: "When you do, we'll explain more about our evaluation
> process to you, and get started on it quickly."
> 
> Well, they didn't when I contacted them some years ago.
> And why explain it only privately, why not public for
> anyone to see? That is what I call non-transparent. 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Henry


Good day Henry,

I know there is email address for licensing,
webmasters are webmasters.

If somebody does not answer back, just call by
phone, send fax, letter, send the email again,
contact RMS, there is no guarantee that email
arrived if you just send it. Make sure it arrives
and then you can say that delay is long.

I always make sure of any important communication
that I know first, for sure, that my communication
arrived.

My feeling is that your opinion of "having hidden
agendae is not substantiated.

Copy of email goes to RMS.

Another thing:

When preparing any application, you do not want to
give a burden to the reviewer, you want to prepare
and demonstrate those factors that reviewer wants
to see.

For example, if you are using Linux libre, you
should state it so, and not wait for reviewer to
find it out hyrself.

Maybe you want to demonstrate what you changed in
the Linux libre kernel.

My suggestion is to follow the guidelines, and
then to demonstrate exactly what is written in
guidelines, and not just ask for reviewer to do
the huge job of reviewing without giving proper
report on what you have done.

I have reviewed the website
https://connochaetos.org/wiki/imprint and I see it
shall be fully free Operating System, KISS
principle, very nice, that is how I like it.

Excellent project!

Sehr gut, viel Arbeit gemacht!

Apart from those already endorsed distributions,
in my opinion, the new distributions shall have
better list of packages, to quickly compare the
packages or software with already known libre
issues in other distributions.

I could not find a list of packages or software
that Conochaet OS is distributing. Maybe you can
send me the list? Or maybe you can quickly create
a page with such list?

On your website, I would also prefer to see more
explanation on 4 freedoms and meaning of free
software, so that website teaches people.

You and me, we know what is free software, new
people do not necessarily know it.

I also did not see much references to licenses.

When I read guidelines, I also do not see the
option, or clear and specific way to report
problems of nonfree software that is found
eventually. Something like a bug tracking.

"ttps://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
> > 
> > and there is email on how to contact FSF, and FSF
> > is responsive, so I see that whole procedure is
> > very transparent.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is clear how to contact: "please write to "
> 
> However, it is not very clear what happens next. How the distro is
> reviewed, what steps are involved. 
> 
> The page states: "When you do, we'll explain more about our evaluation
> process to you, and get started on it quickly."
> 
> Well, they didn't when I contacted them some years ago.
> And why explain it only privately, why not public for
> anyone to see? That is what I call non-transparent. 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Henry


Good day Henry,

I know there is email address for licensing,
webmasters are webmasters.

If somebody does not answer back, just call by
phone, send fax, letter, send the email again,
contact RMS, there is no guarantee that email
arrived if you just send it. Make sure it arrives
and then you can say that delay is long.

I always make sure of any important communication
that I know first, for sure, that my communication
arrived.

My feeling is that your opinion of "having hidden
agendae is not substantiated.

Copy of email goes to RMS.

Another thing:

When preparing any application, you do not want to
give a burden to the reviewer, you want to prepare
and demonstrate those factors that reviewer wants
to see.

For example, if you are using Linux libre, you
should state it so, and not wait for reviewer to
find it out hyrself.

Maybe you want to demonstrate what you changed in
the Linux libre kernel.

My suggestion is to follow the guidelines, and
then to demonstrate