On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:17:53 -0700 Ivan wrote:
> FSF seems to be under the impression that the linked post of
> yours raised an issue that was never resolved.
> Can you please clarify for us in what way, if any, the current
> state of Freenix is in violation of FSDG
the statements in that post were purely generalized (IF->THEN) -
i do not know if the IF condition is actually the case - i never
looked into freenix personally - the wording of my comment looks
quite clear to me; but i will re-phrase it
i dont remember exactly, but it appears to be in response to
someones concern that the freenix documentation is incomplete,
which is not a problem on its own; but that, more importantly, it
directs users to the slackware documentation to provide its
missing information
the point i made on that post was: IF that above is true THEN the
FSFs objection is the same as with debian, in that their
documentation describes how and/or recommends using non-free
software - for that reason, an FSDG distro should not direct
their users to read such documentation
that was in regards to the criteria: "shall not recommend or
lead user toward non-free"; but documentation is also related to
the "self-sufficiency" criteria, such that the distro is not
merely a "spin" of another distro, or simply a third-party repo
for another distro - it needs to be a complete distro, with all
software and documentation hosted by the project - i.e. if
slackware stopped publishing freely, freenix should be able to
continue operating completely and independently
again, i dont know what is the actual state of freenix - these
are just my interpretations of the FSDG criteria
