Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
Ineiev wote: > I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved: > if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it > effectively directs its users to Slackware? Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > FSF has not told us the official FSF position concerning these > hypothetical scenarios either. If Childebert received a response from the FSF pointing to the matter and stating that it "remained unresolved" (to make a quote) that seems (to me) an unambiguous response from them saying it needs to be addressed. Perhaps forking the documentation is an appropriate next step then, along with a response back to that person at the FSF to tell them that this has been done.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:39 -0700 Ivan wrote: > I really don't think we should discuss any more hypothetical > scenarios in this thread. my response was only to indicate the reasons why it potentially could be a topic of discussion on this list; but its not clear why this thread is directed at the workgroup today at all the original message stated: "I received the message from the FSF"; but the only references given were: Childebert Matt Samudio and then later: "Ineiev via RT" as far as i know, none of those people work for the FSF - if you got some message _from_the_FSF_, then that is no one else's concern; but only for you to handle privately with the FSF if complaints are raised to you privately by anyone else not representing the FSF, i would ask for a proper bug report to be opened on your bug tracker; and that person should contact this group or the FSF only if the problem is not addressed after some time
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
I really don't think we should discuss any more hypothetical scenarios in this thread. I would agree with you that Freenix forum is a more appropriate place to discuss how we present documentation and how that affects our users' freedom. The real question here is, the way I see it: why does https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros#Distros_ready_for_final_review_by_the_FSF say that Freenix "passed community evaluation for all FSDG criteria and [is] awaiting final review by the FSF licensing team" on one hand, and on the other hand "Ineiev via RT" just informed at least one curious user that there is an unresolved FSDG-related issue, raised in a community forum, and then directed the user to a post which does not raise any such issue, according to the post's author? At the very least, we here at Freenix would like to know which of these seemingly contradictory scenarios is actually taking place. On Friday, June 21, 2019 17:41:59 bill-auger wrote: > i suppose the question is whether there is indeed an issue that > is unresolved > > * are there links on the freenix website that lead users to the > slackware website? > > * if yes, does the slackware website contain > recommendations or instructions for using non-free software? > > * if yes, is that a FSDG problem? > > i dont know the answer to any of those questions myself; but if > this were still up for community discussion, i would note that > when parabola was created, it had the similar stated goal to > stay as close to arch as possible > > the original parabola devs took the time to copy the most > important documentation from the arch wiki onto the parabola > wiki, some edited for FSDG-compliance, some not edited - > presumably that was in order to avoid directing users to the arch > wiki for any reason, because the arch wiki contains instructions > and recommendation for using non-free software > > i am not certain if that was strictly required for them to do so > though - perhaps there is a subtle issue to clarify on this list > - namely, whether the documentation must avoid external links > that lead websites that are known to contain recommendations, > that could be construed as indirect recommendations - perhaps > there already is a consensus on that concern - i am not sure > > if that is a DSFG problem, the simple solution would be to remove > any links to slackware documentation - even if that leaves the > freenix documentation incomplete, complete documentation is not a > criteria for endorsement signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
i suppose the question is whether there is indeed an issue that is unresolved * are there links on the freenix website that lead users to the slackware website? * if yes, does the slackware website contain recommendations or instructions for using non-free software? * if yes, is that a FSDG problem? i dont know the answer to any of those questions myself; but if this were still up for community discussion, i would note that when parabola was created, it had the similar stated goal to stay as close to arch as possible the original parabola devs took the time to copy the most important documentation from the arch wiki onto the parabola wiki, some edited for FSDG-compliance, some not edited - presumably that was in order to avoid directing users to the arch wiki for any reason, because the arch wiki contains instructions and recommendation for using non-free software i am not certain if that was strictly required for them to do so though - perhaps there is a subtle issue to clarify on this list - namely, whether the documentation must avoid external links that lead websites that are known to contain recommendations, that could be construed as indirect recommendations - perhaps there already is a consensus on that concern - i am not sure if that is a DSFG problem, the simple solution would be to remove any links to slackware documentation - even if that leaves the freenix documentation incomplete, complete documentation is not a criteria for endorsement
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
What you are saying below was also my understanding, Bill, up to very recently, because this email from Childebert , who inquired about our status from FSF just a few days ago, seems to offer a contradictory assertion: > Subject: reply FSF > Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019, 18:36:31 > From: Childebert > To: Ivan Zaigralin > CC: Matt Samudio > > Le Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:21:01 -0700, > Ivan Zaigralin a écrit : > > I received the message from the FSF he say this :"With Freenix, a year > ago an issue was raised on gnu-linux-libre@ that remained unresolved > there, > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00023.html Perhaps this is all a result of miscommunication, but either way, FSF's official position in this process is one of the things I am trying to understand right now. On Friday, June 21, 2019 17:03:58 bill-auger wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:08:44 -0700 Ivan wrote: > > Once again, please let us know if there's anything there you > > see that is in violation of FSDG. > > i think this distro is entirely in the FSF's hands now - shortly > after the new evaluation procedure was put into place, donald > immediately moved freenix and libretybsd out of the section: > "Distros that have requested consideration", and into the > section: "Distros ready for final review by the FSF", bypassing > the section: "Distros currently being evaluated by the community" > > https://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=Incoming_distros=revision=48277 > =48254 > > as i remember that was because those two distros were considered > to be already fully evaluated by the community, and would not > need to go through the new review checklist process; but would > be immediately eligible for consideration by the FSF > > at this point, if someone from the community found an issue with > freenix, probably the freenix bug tracker would be the most > appropriate place to report it - there is probably nothing more > to discuss on this list, unless it turns out to be some unclear > edge case that requires discussion, clarification, or consensus > in order to determine of it is a FSDG problem signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
Excellent work Ivan, thank you for pushing forward free system distribution! Jean * Ivan Zaigralin [2019-06-21 22:10]: > On Friday, June 21, 2019 18:46:17 Ineiev wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:00:32PM -0400, bill-auger wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Quite right, > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00016.html > > says, > > > > > It makes zero sense to duplicate the documentation, since our > > > project is dead set on keeping the technical details identical > > > to Slackware as much as possible, allowing us not to fork > > > support. > > > > I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved: > > if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it > > effectively directs its users to Slackware? > > Before I address these concerns, please let me share with you my emotional > state. I am getting rather frustrated with this conversation, although I am > definitely not blaming anyone in particular for that, except for possibly > myself. The thing is, Freenix has committed to compliance with FSDG prior to > 2017. We have received a number of relevant bug reports since then, and we > took care of each and every one of them. To mention just some, we changed the > project name and removed offending packages, like some fonts and some Mozilla > products. > > Bill says rather explicitly, he has no bugs to report, he's just musing. FSF > has not told us the official FSF position concerning these hypothetical > scenarios either. Our entire documentation at freenix.net can be skimmed in > minutes; if there's an FSDG-related bug there, having to do with either the > links or the quantity of documentation, it hasn't been reported in years. Do > you perhaps see now where we are coming from? We are not aware of anything > afoul of FSDG within our project as of right now, and one of our primary > goals > is to take freedom bug reports with full seriousness. We are at a loss as to > what else we need to do at this point of the FSF approval process in order to > move it along, so some clarification would be very welcome. > > Now, to address the issues raised in Bill's original post: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00023.html > > To the best of my understanding, the issues there have to do with > documentation and/or linking to Slackware documentation. The entirety > of > Freenix documentation is currently in one place: freenix.net. There's wiki > there, a forum, and the source code for the deployment script. If > quality/quantity of documentation is a concern for this certification > process, > it's there for anyone to see and judge. > > There are a few Web links, as of now, from our wiki to Slackware-related > resources. None of them are with the intent to provide documentation to > Freenix end users. They are all credit and/or reference links, practically > unavoidable simply because we believe it is our duty to explain to our users > and the potential contributors just what we do to the upstream Slackware > distribution to make it into a freedom-respecting product. > > Once again, please let us know if there's anything there you see that is in > violation of FSDG.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
On Friday, June 21, 2019 18:46:17 Ineiev wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:00:32PM -0400, bill-auger wrote: > > 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 > > Quite right, > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00016.html > says, > > > It makes zero sense to duplicate the documentation, since our > > project is dead set on keeping the technical details identical > > to Slackware as much as possible, allowing us not to fork > > support. > > I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved: > if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it > effectively directs its users to Slackware? Before I address these concerns, please let me share with you my emotional state. I am getting rather frustrated with this conversation, although I am definitely not blaming anyone in particular for that, except for possibly myself. The thing is, Freenix has committed to compliance with FSDG prior to 2017. We have received a number of relevant bug reports since then, and we took care of each and every one of them. To mention just some, we changed the project name and removed offending packages, like some fonts and some Mozilla products. Bill says rather explicitly, he has no bugs to report, he's just musing. FSF has not told us the official FSF position concerning these hypothetical scenarios either. Our entire documentation at freenix.net can be skimmed in minutes; if there's an FSDG-related bug there, having to do with either the links or the quantity of documentation, it hasn't been reported in years. Do you perhaps see now where we are coming from? We are not aware of anything afoul of FSDG within our project as of right now, and one of our primary goals is to take freedom bug reports with full seriousness. We are at a loss as to what else we need to do at this point of the FSF approval process in order to move it along, so some clarification would be very welcome. Now, to address the issues raised in Bill's original post: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00023.html To the best of my understanding, the issues there have to do with documentation and/or linking to Slackware documentation. The entirety of Freenix documentation is currently in one place: freenix.net. There's wiki there, a forum, and the source code for the deployment script. If quality/quantity of documentation is a concern for this certification process, it's there for anyone to see and judge. There are a few Web links, as of now, from our wiki to Slackware-related resources. None of them are with the intent to provide documentation to Freenix end users. They are all credit and/or reference links, practically unavoidable simply because we believe it is our duty to explain to our users and the potential contributors just what we do to the upstream Slackware distribution to make it into a freedom-respecting product. Once again, please let us know if there's anything there you see that is in violation of FSDG. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:00:32PM -0400, bill-auger wrote: > > 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 Quite right, https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-07/msg00016.html says, > It makes zero sense to duplicate the documentation, since our > project is dead set on keeping the technical details identical > to Slackware as much as possible, allowing us not to fork > support. I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved: if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it effectively directs its users to Slackware? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
