Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
On 03/25/2018 11:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later"


chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:

  Recommended Fix:
Remove program/package
Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent

surely that list needs some attention - i suppose it's maintenance will
be a new task for this group

i suggested recently on the FSD mailing list of expending it greatly
using the parabola blacklist data which could help keep it updated in an
automated way



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
On 03/25/2018 11:35 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> That is not part of the FSDG!


it is one of the checklist items that donald put on the newly codified
criteria last week[1] - you are correct though, that it is not specified
on the guidelines web page[2] - maybe it will be added soon - i dunno

of course everyone should be allowed the benefit of doubt to fix
problems once found - i was not implying the distro would be blacklisted
- i was saying that software on that list needs to be blacklisted from
the distro repos unless some liberating procedure is found

[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Template:FSDG_Checklist
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Jason Self 
Robert Call  wrote ..

> That is not part of the FSDG!

Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later" as
a fix. So even once Chromium is sorted out it'd still be on there but
with a similar recommended fix. So it's not so much a blacklist
anymore these days but more of a list of minimum versions to use.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Robert Call 
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 23:17 -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> On 03/25/2018 04:22 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> > But I don't think that the FSDG requires distros to remove a
> > program
> > over allegations of freedom problems.
> 
> no, but the FSDG does specify "No software from the List of software
> that does not respect the FSDG" - so until the day chromium is
> removed
> from that list, i think it's blacklisting is compulsory in lieu of
> any
> known liberation procedure

That is not part of the FSDG! It would only be if they did not
cooperate or if they did not make a commitment to removing non-free
software! So, should libreCMC be removed or blacklisted if we found
some non-obvious freedom issue or bug? Mistakes and misunderstanding do
happen and you can't ignore that.

--
Robert Call (bob)
b...@librecmc.org
https://librecmc.org

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
On 03/25/2018 01:26 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> we already passed the distro
> review, you can either help us get better
> or try to fix review process if you
> feel unhappy about it.

the assumption here seems to be that distros have no further obligation
after the initial review process, other than remaining active and fixing
bugs; but that is only two of the criteria - the very topic of this
thread is make it clear that the role of this group extends beyond the
initial review process; and holding the FSDG distros accountable to
*all* of the guidelines perpetually - with the invitation to all distros
to participate in the ongoing discussions that affect all



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
On 03/25/2018 11:28 AM, Robert Call wrote:
> While I don't agree with Bill's stance
the only sentiments i expressed that qualify as a "stance" are that
everyone should held to the same standards and that each distro should
elect a delegate to participate in these discussions - i should hope
those were agreeable to everyone

if anything else came across as prescriptive; it was not intended that way


On 03/25/2018 11:28 AM, Robert Call wrote:
> Many of us are willing to forgive PureOS and Purism for past issues,

again, i will underline that i literally have no knowledge of any such
past issues; and remain in full suspension of judgment - as such, i
would not presume to make any prescriptions regarding pureos specifically



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
i really can not speak to any experiences you may have had on this list
in the past - i have only been active on this list for about one year
and i have not seen anything particularly negative about pureos in that time

personally, i have insufficient facts to form an opinion of either
pureos or purism; so i would not presume to do so, neither privately nor
publicly - im just glad you joined the discussion - please do pardon any
perceived animosity - none was intended


On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> next time please go to our bugtracker
> and report a bug there and start discussion
> Simply removing chromium is a disservice
> for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily.

the decision to remove chromium was not taken lightly by anyone - this
community has been discussing it for several years - i did not report
that issue to pureos - it had been there already for several months when
i found it - all i could have possibly done in the context of pureos
specifically, would have been to "up-vote" the existing tracker issue
like: "yea me too +1" - but i would not presume to do any such thing -
bug trackers are not popularity polls and software licenses are not
subjective - most objectively speaking, any wad of software is either
freely distributable as a whole or it is not - it is very unfortunate
that down-streams are burdened to determine that subjectively in this
case - but the main purpose of this discussion group is to resolve such
issues that affect all FSDG distros equally - and so, because that issue
affects every FSDG distro equally; the bug tracker of one distro is not
the proper place to discuss it - it is regretful if pureos was ever made
to feel unwelcome to community discussion in the past - i hope we can
change that going forward


On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:> Debian kernel itself is
entirely free but there was issues with messages
> that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
> same time.

i really can not to speak to that issue at all - that is a sticky mess
that the FSF created and one that only they can resolve; but whatever
determination is reached should be something that all FSDG distros are
bound to equally - just as with the chromium issue, i favor no
particular decision myself - but i do want to see everyone on the same
page - if the pureos folks can solve that kernel logging issue; please
do post the result here on this list - no one here is expected to be
reading the pureos bug tracker and certainly not the debian bug tracker


On 03/25/2018 05:58 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
> community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.

if i am interpreting that statement correctly, it reads like an
uncomfortable ultimatum - i think you have this relationship inverted -
and please do not implicate me directly as if i had any obligations here
- i am just a volunteer with no particular interest in pureos other than
the fact that pureos wants to be accepted as part of the greater GNU
community - my intention here is only to encourage all DSFG distros to
participate in the discussions of common issues - discussions of common
issues are more fruitful in a common place; not the issue tracker of one
distro

if pureos hopes to be accepted warmly into the greater GNU community;
then i would think that pureos would be inclined, of it's own
initiative, to participate in the community discussions - then perhaps
some interest would begin flowing in the other direction

it is regretful if anyone working on pureos has taken any personal
offense to any words printed to this mailing list in the past - i could
see this becoming a fruitful relationship between GNU and pureos; but
please try not to take anything personally - myself, i would be the
first one to defend any project if i saw anyone spreading FUD - but on
the other hand, i can not align myself with people who uses such
emotionally charged language in a professional context

people are not "toxic" and neither are opinions or language - chlorine
is toxic - such loaded words are not appropriate in a professional
context - they only serve to inject emotional subjectivity into an
otherwise sane professional context unnecessarily - for example, i am
very much unwilling to "play nice in a work context" - that very request
portrays the speaker's co-workers as children; which is as belittling to
both - i may "play nice" in a play-time context; but in a professional
context, i prefer to "behave as a mature adult" - that is not intending
to be facetious; the particular words people choose are extremely
important, especially in asynchronous digital text form - again, i dont
claim to be any representative of this group - i can only speak to this
for myself; but in my experience, simply avoiding highly emotionally
charged language generally allows people to get along more amicably
through adversities; and is the basis for

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread François Téchené 


On 25/03/2018 19:56, Robert Call wrote:
> 
> What more did you expect when a project is started by a parent company
> and pushed for a discrete nvidia GPU for their crowdfunding campaign?
> Had it been a truly independent project, that would not have happened.
> Projects associated with a parent company always carry the baggage of
> the parent company.
> 

I think that there is some misunderstanding on what the Purism "plan" is
and has always been.

Purism has taken the problem in the other way around and I can
understand that it seems pretty confusing for freedom supporters.
Instead of starting from a fully free hardware, which is very limited in
choice, which requires a tremendous amount of resources to be improved,
and that is not always friendly to the average user, Purism has chosen
to start from a much more common hardware and work on freeing it.

Why doing that? Because nobody else has tried this approach yet and
because we think that it can succeed in being freedom respecting while
bringing freedom to the mass.

Bringing freedom to the mass is what, personally, bothers me the most. I
think that one very important aspect of a freedom respecting technology
is that it is not discriminating anyone, because there is no freedom on
something that one cannot access. A computer that is not matching the
average user's expectations (too technical, not convenient enough,
limited in resources) is discriminating a large part of the population,
no matter how much "educating" about free software we do. This is a fact
and it is not acceptable.

You may not agree with our vision but please, don't judge Purism on what
it started from but what it is going towards instead. See how the Librem
improved in term of freedom since its first version. We keep working on
freeing the BIOS, reverse engineering the remaining blobs and we push
all this work upstream to coreboot. Just like we push PureOS development
to Debian as much as we can. This is just a start. In the long term, we
would love to get enough financial resources to push the development of
truly free technologies like RISC V. Being RYF certified with convenient
modern hardware is on our road-map.

Again, you may no agree with our approach and you are free to have
different ideas on how to manufacture freedom respecting computers _for
everyone_ (I insist). In this case, go ahead, start a project or
contribute to an existing project that is aligned with your ideas and
prove that we were wrong because we may be.

At the end of the day, no matter who was wrong or right in the way to
get there as long as we manage to get there => "freedom for everyone"

Cheers,

-- 
François Téchené
Director of Creative @ Purism

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Jason Self 
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request 
> complete removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways 
> of this because simply removing things means also we remove 
> productivity for many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that 
> is still not 100% stable and some things work on chromium that don't
> work on Firefox and vice versa).

Sure, I agree. My understanding is that the only reason people have
brought up Chromium is because it's still listed from many years ago
[0]. As I understand it, upstream has said that they've since fixed
the problems that were raised. AFAIK no one has since done a deep dive
into Chromium to confirm and determine if any other issues exist. If
anything there is some evidence to suggest that it may very well just
be a years-old outdated report and is not valid anymore. But until
someone goes and checks...

But I don't think that the FSDG requires distros to remove a program
over allegations of freedom problems. Waiting until they're actually
confirmed also seems to follow with the FSDG, and might even be better
because it avoids removing packages only to re-add them later in cases
where the report turns out to be wrong. Or perhaps merely changing a
program would be sufficient, not a full removal. Either way, waiting
for an in-depth analysis and confirmation of any particular problem
seems a better solution.

> You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be 
> all the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself 
> as a bashing field.

> the easiest and most efficient way to get PureOS attention is to
> use its public bugtracker (and feel free to mail me directly - 
> whenever I have time I will jump on IRC/Matrix/WebRTC/Mumble).

I agree that this mailing list has its challenges but freedom problems
are usually not limited to just one distro. So it is good to have a
place where all of the FSF-endorsed distros can communicate and work
together on such things in a cooperative way. It would be more
difficult to organize communication to such things if the discussion
on problems were spread out among the ticketing systems of all 12
endorsed distros. For this reason I hope that you (or someone working
on PureOS) will remain involved here. Hopefully everyone involved can
keep things civil and on-topic.

[0]
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#chromium-browser

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Zlatan Todoric 


On 3/25/18 7:56 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:

* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
separate
can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
uniform
message, however vague the circumstance, until such
controversies
are
resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
controversy should be participating in the discussions on this
list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be
all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as
a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't
want
to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a
disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also,
while
it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that
is
not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such
project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal
and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively
working
on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as
well,
we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have
lack
of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57



* then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
this is
what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
pureos
and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
without
exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by
the
controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion
on
this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and
Debian
at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405



admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
because i
have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it
seems
quite
clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i
would
propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each
distro
to
elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally,
to
stand
uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the
FSDG
such
as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel


Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if
you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this
list
is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work
at
all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.


Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of
problems
from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed
and
asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now
is
not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.

Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling
and yet proving the toxicity.

What behavior are you talking about? This is the first time I have
really made any statements in regards to Purism or PureOS. I kept quiet
on most issues even when I wanted to speak up. Is it toxic to work
towards a certain goal and not make compromises on that goal? Taring
and feathering me is not helping. I would go further and ask what other
buzz words are you going to throw at or call me?



I can't nor do I want to keep a personal list of people that pointed 
fingers to PureOS without valid reasons (some used even Purism and its 
hardware for trying to bash and block PureOS from getting endorsed). I 
encourage you to keep working, but also and again for PureOS, please use 
our tracker and assign such bugs to me so I get direct notification.






While Purism did make claims it could not
stand to it in timeframe it wanted, Purism is still moving thing
slowly
forward and even has constitution to defend such stand. Issues you
have
with Purism are not part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in
context that PureOS gets bashed basically because Purism is behind
it.

What more did

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Robert Call 
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 19:26 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > > On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> > > > * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> > > > solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
> > > > separate
> > > > can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
> > > > uniform
> > > > message, however vague the circumstance, until such
> > > > controversies
> > > > are
> > > > resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
> > > > controversy should be participating in the discussions on this
> > > > list
> > > 
> > > You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be
> > > all
> > > the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as
> > > a
> > > bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
> > > discussions
> > > here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't
> > > want
> > > to
> > > spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a
> > > disservice
> > > for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also,
> > > while
> > > it
> > > would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that
> > > is
> > > not
> > > happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
> > > likely
> > > because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
> > > celebrated
> > > that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such
> > > project
> > > and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal
> > > and
> > > blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
> > > bugtracker
> > > and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively
> > > working
> > > on
> > > PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as
> > > well,
> > > we
> > > also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have
> > > lack
> > > of
> > > time and energy to be everywhere).
> > > 
> > > https://tracker.pureos.net/T57
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > * then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
> > > > this is
> > > > what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
> > > > pureos
> > > > and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
> > > > without
> > > > exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by
> > > > the
> > > > controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion
> > > > on
> > > > this list
> > > 
> > > Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
> > > messages
> > > that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and
> > > Debian
> > > at
> > > same time.
> > > 
> > > https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
> > > 
> > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
> > > > because i
> > > > have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it
> > > > seems
> > > > quite
> > > > clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i
> > > > would
> > > > propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each
> > > > distro
> > > > to
> > > > elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
> > > > discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally,
> > > > to
> > > > stand
> > > > uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the
> > > > FSDG
> > > > such
> > > > as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if
> > > you
> > > kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
> > > especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
> > > assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this
> > > list
> > > is
> > > toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work
> > > at
> > > all.
> > > You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
> > > community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
> > Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of
> > problems
> > from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
> > that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed
> > and
> > asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now
> > is
> > not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.
> 
> Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling
> and yet proving the toxicity. 

What behavior are you talking about? This is the first time I have
really made any statements in regards to Purism or PureOS. I kept quiet
on most issues even when I wanted to speak up. Is it toxic to work
towards a certain goal and not make compromises on that goal? Taring
and feathering me is not helping. I would go further and ask what other

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Zlatan Todoric 


On 3/25/18 5:28 PM, Robert Call wrote:

On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:

* pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
separate
can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
uniform
message, however vague the circumstance, until such controversies
are
resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
controversy should be participating in the discussions on this list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't want
to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also, while
it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that is
not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively working
on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as well,
we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have lack
of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57



* then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
this is
what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
pureos
and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
without
exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by the
controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion on
this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian
at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405



admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
because i
have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it seems
quite
clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i would
propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each distro
to
elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally, to
stand
uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the FSDG
such
as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel


Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this list
is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work at
all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.


Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of problems
from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed and
asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now is
not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.


Your behavior is again not acceptable - you're assuming I am yelling and 
yet proving the toxicity. While Purism did make claims it could not 
stand to it in timeframe it wanted, Purism is still moving thing slowly 
forward and even has constitution to defend such stand. Issues you have 
with Purism are not part of PureOS and I mentioned Purism only in 
context that PureOS gets bashed basically because Purism is behind it. 
There is no far or patience part - we went through process, been there 
for 2 years, got accepted as endorsed and are committed to it - that has 
nothing to do with your or other feelings.


To speak more to topic part - we were pointed to parts for being an 
endorsed distro and one is being actively maintained to be accepted, and 
that is a good requirement. Being un-maintained is disservice to users 
and a security risk as well and such distro should be promoted as new 
user will get into trouble and maybe end up blaming FSF and other 
distros. PureOS is actively maintained with public bugtracker so bring 
your technical issues there.




Many of us are willing to forgive PureOS and Purism for past issues,
but it is going to take more time for Purism and PureOS to show they
are dedicated to the Free Software movement. Many of us in the Free
Software

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Robert Call 
On Sun, 2018-03-25 at 11:58 +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> > 
> > * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> > solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a
> > separate
> > can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a
> > uniform
> > message, however vague the circumstance, until such controversies
> > are
> > resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
> > controversy should be participating in the discussions on this list
> 
> You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be all
> the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as a
> bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in
> discussions
> here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't want
> to
> spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a disservice
> for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also, while
> it
> would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that is
> not
> happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most
> likely
> because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be
> celebrated
> that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such project
> and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal and
> blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our
> bugtracker
> and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively working
> on
> PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as well,
> we
> also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have lack
> of
> time and energy to be everywhere).
> 
> https://tracker.pureos.net/T57
> 
> 
> > 
> > * then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if
> > this is
> > what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then
> > pureos
> > and any future candidates should be held to that same standard
> > without
> > exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by the
> > controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion on
> > this list
> 
> Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with
> messages
> that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian
> at
> same time.
> 
> https://tracker.pureos.net/T362
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405
> 
> 
> > 
> > admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly
> > because i
> > have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it seems
> > quite
> > clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i would
> > propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each distro
> > to
> > elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
> > discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally, to
> > stand
> > uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the FSDG
> > such
> > as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel
> > 
> 
> Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if you
> kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
> especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
> assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this list
> is
> toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work at
> all.
> You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
> community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.
> 

Yelling "this list is toxic" does not help you or anyone else. Both
Purism and PureOS did this to themselves with the long list of problems
from the start. While I don't agree with Bill's stance, I would say
that more time is needed to get over these issues. Being entailed and
asserting that everyone must forgive you for past issues right now is
not going to get you very far and you must have the patience.

Many of us are willing to forgive PureOS and Purism for past issues,
but it is going to take more time for Purism and PureOS to show they
are dedicated to the Free Software movement. Many of us in the Free
Software community are still concerned about some of the current
actions and behavior of Purism and the lack of community around PureOS.

If you are wanting to fix these issues, it is going to take time and I
encourage Purism and the PureOS team to reach out to those who have
been a part of the Free Software community for a while instead of
making guesses and taking a few stabs in the dark. Many of us have been
doing this for a long time and we have the wounds to show for it. If in
doubt, reach out.


--
Robert Call (Bob)
b...@librecmc.org
https://librecmc.org

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread Zlatan Todoric 

On 3/24/18 6:51 PM, bill-auger wrote:
>
> * pureos has a long-standing open request to remove chromium in
> solidarity with the other FSDG distros - that issue is o/c a separate
> can of worms; but i think all distros should be projecting a uniform
> message, however vague the circumstance, until such controversies are
> resolved - or *at the very least*, all distros affected by the
> controversy should be participating in the discussions on this list

You have our tracker to comment on that and can't expect us to be all
the time everywhere, especially not on list that proved itself as a
bashing field. We do read it, we just don't jump anymore in discussions
here as they tend to go south for various reasons that I don't want to
spend time nor energy on it. Simply removing chromium is a disservice
for average user and it shouldn't be a task taken easily. Also, while it
would nice for distros to have solidarity with each other, that is not
happening and PureOS is often taken into hostage situation most likely
because it is funded by Purism which in my opinion should be celebrated
that one commercial company is willing to put funds into such project
and not the other way around. I have now fully requested removal and
blockade of chromium package but next time please go to our bugtracker
and report a bug there and start discussion (we are actively working on
PureOS. Also all current PureOS staff are Debian Developers as well, we
also have other duties so you can't take against us that we have lack of
time and energy to be everywhere).

https://tracker.pureos.net/T57


>
> * then, the other can of worms regarding the debian kernel - if this is
> what has been preventing connochaetos from being endorsed, then pureos
> and any future candidates should be held to that same standard without
> exception - again, at the very least, all distros affected by the
> controversy should be expected to participate in the discussion on this list

Debian kernel itself is entirely free but there was issues with messages
that was brought to us and we worked on it both in PureOS and Debian at
same time.

https://tracker.pureos.net/T362

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888405


>
> admittedly, i have been kicking pureos a lot lately - mainly because i
> have been hoping to see someone from pureos defend it - it seems quite
> clear to me that no one from pureos is reading this list - i would
> propose that one of the FSDG requirements should be for each distro to
> elect a delegate to follow, if not actively participate in the
> discussions on this list on behalf of the distro - and ideally, to stand
> uniformly with the greater community in the grey areas of the FSDG such
> as the current chromium issue and the debian kernel
>
Kicking PureOS is just doing disfavor to what are you trying - if you
kick me don't expect me to be nice, that is not how things work
especially in volunteer based projects. You are also doing false
assumptions and that is again bringing me to first point - this list is
toxic for no reason, if you can't work nicely you shouldn't work at all.
You have bug tracker for PureOS if you want to work with PureOS
community and not stretch us on dozen of sides.

Z

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

2018-03-25 Thread bill-auger 
On 03/24/2018 08:47 PM, Jason Self wrote:
> Please feel free to start a review of Ututo or
> any other one.

ok - that is precisely the intention of this thread to determine if such
a review were done and if there were blatent problems then would
anything actually be done about that situation

im glad you said this because i have been biting my tongue on speaking
to that point - i regret that i must spell this out so blatantly but we
did such a post review last summer and still, to this day, not one iota
of my findings has been addressed or even acknowledged publicly by
anyone with the authority to do anything about them - (i qualified that
with "publicly" because i think donald did thank me privately) - the
community was vocally pleased that we did it; but nothing actually came
of it

as julie pointed out though, some lengthy discussion did result
regarding opinions on defunct or possibly "dangerous" distros ;) - but
the website still says that ututo is a gentoo derivative - that has been
false information for a long time - that was the only attention that was
required for which no discussion was necessary - a ten-second task ...
delete the words "based on Gentoo" - but no one has

and i hope i do not appear to be griping - people are busy ... ok fine -
i like to be busy too - but very practically speaking, if people are too
busy to address the problems then there is little point in looking for them

so most of the items i raised in this thread are those items still
dangling from last summer - the new public workflow protocol for
evaluations is very encouraging; but it is not at all obvious that
ongoing reviews will receive due attention - that is why i am drawing
this out so painfully and plainly now

that being said, i was not really asking if a new review of the new
ututo was acceptable or welcome as such - i was asking more strongly
*should it* be made the policy for it (and any other) to be subjected to
a fresh review on the justification that it is technically an entirely
different distro than the one that was originally endorsed - or is it
reasonable to blindly endorse forevermore, anything they publish under
the same name, purely on good faith



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature