Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Jason Self]

bill-auger  wrote ..
> some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification

But hopefully not to the point of trying to document and cover all
possible cases. This is probably not possible. Even if it were if
evaluations were treated as a simple, automated, rote process where
someone worked from some sort of fixed recipe then things would
probably be missed. Meaning that having some vagueness is actually a
good thing rather than trying to spell out all possible things and
then missing things or not hitting the intended point. This leaves
things open to have a discussion on the mailing list, potentially with
different answers in different cases depending on the specifics of the
circumstances.

> FSF does not consider data (raw information) or art to be 
> "practical";

I'm not sure what you mean by "data (raw information)" but even if
something were to fall into that Non-functional Data part of the
definition, it must at least provide permission to copy and
redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. So it's
also not acceptable for it to be entirely proprietary either.

> it is not at all clear what this criteria covers

Things that are neither software nor documentation. Think fonts,
PostScript Printer Description files, data sets used by speech
recognition software to learn how to recognize words, hyphenation
patterns in dictionaries, etc. It's probably not possible to make an
exhaustive list of everything, which circles back to the point I made
at the beginning that it's best to evaluate things in light of the
specifics of a given case instead of trying to enumerate things.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[bill-auger]

some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification - for
instance: "1.10 - Other Information for practical use" if not
"software" and "documentation" - software and documentation are already
covered in sections 1.8 and 1.9 and the FSF does not consider data (raw
information) or art to be "practical"; so it is not at all clear what
this criteria covers

i think the template page should have a link to the existing
"Free_System_Distribution_Checklist" page[1] which intends to describe
in detail what the criteria entails - it currently mentions only a few
but that page could be expanded to describe the intention of and
guidelines for each criteria on the new checklist

the existing "Free_System_Distribution_Checklist" page[1] already makes
clear something else that should be revised or at least clarified -
namely: the criteria: "1.6 - No software from the List of software that
does not respect the FSDG" - to be clear, that list is not a hard
blacklist but expects each entry to offer advice on how and if the
program can be brought into compliance - many or most of them do, and so
many or most of those programs can be included in a FSDG distro if the
recommended cleansing steps are taken


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist
"List of software that does not respect the FSDG"



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Donald Robertson]

Hello again,

I've put together updated instructions on the review process on
. I hope I've captured
the feedback from our previous discussion, but if I've missed something
please let me know. I also created a template for the checklist, so
please take a look at this as well
.
Thank you to everyone for your help in refining things.
-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56