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

[Henry Jensen]

Am 4. April 2018 17:58:51 MESZ schrieb KRT Listmaster 
:
.
>
>I will try some newer versions of Qt5 as well as a newer version of
>QupZilla just to see if there are any differences.  However, from my
>preliminary investigations, I would be willing to say that QtWebEngine
>(5.6.1) does not, by itself, make outgoing requests while idling.
>


Thanks for sharing your findings. Please note, that qupzilla is deprecated and 
the devs recommend to switch to Falkon browser [0].

Regards,

Henry

[0] https://www.falkon.org

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

[Henry Jensen]

Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :

> We're going in circles. We had that discussion before. I pointed to
> the earlier messages on this mailing list where RMS had said it
> amounted to that in our earier conversation, and how
> PureOS was probably an oversight. It doesn't seem fair to point to a
> mistake and want it to continue to happen going forward. 

RMS mail from 7 years ago was vague and sounded that he didn't had all
the facts back then (he wrote "it sounds like ..."). The fact that
PureOS was endorsed in the meantime indicates that also.

I've gone trough the entire history again. So far, the argument that
PureOS was a "mistake" or an "oversight" was only made by you (and the
PureOS developer on this list objected) 

PureOS worked for two years with the FSF to become endorsed. I found it
hard to believe that they, of all things, didn't look at the kernel.
And if even so, in the 3 month that have passed since my intial mail
nobody reported this as a freedom bug in the PureOS bug tracker, as you
suggested.

As long as this isn't accepted as a valid freedom bug by PureOS or the
FSF I think the facts are clear. 

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

[Henry Jensen]

Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb "Jason Self" :

> But, if you want a response, the FSDG contains a prohibition to not
> steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, 
> or encouraging them to do so. 

It depends on how you define "to steer". Just to mention a file name or
any other non-free program isn't hardly "steering". And it seems that
this is also the view at the FSF. Otherwise PureOS wouldn't have been
endorsed in the first place.

As for ConnochaetOS: quite the opposite is true. Since the the kernel in
warns about possible non-free firmware it is leading users
away and discourages them from installing it.

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

[Henry Jensen]

Am Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:58:54 -0400
schrieb bill-auger :


> how exactly was this issue resolved? the issue title seems spot on but
> that patch does not even attempt to address the FSDG issue of the blob
> name - it is exactly the solution the connochaetos proposed last
> august that was not accepted[1] and the review of connochaetos
> essentially halted at that point


we are dealing with two different issues here.

1. The freedom bug at the PureOS bug tracker
https://tracker.pureos.net/T362 deals with the messages that originates
from initramfs-tools, like this one:

W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/i915/bxt_dmc_ver1_07.bin for
module i915

According to the bug tracker, this issue has been fixed in PureOS.

ConnochaetOS never had this issue of printing warnings about missing
firmware when generating the initramfs, because we don't use Debian's
initramfs-tools.


2. A complete different issue is about printing messages about
failed-to-load firmware to the log file. These messages originate from
the kernel itself, they read like this:

iwlwifi: :03:00.0 firmware: failed to load iwlwifi-6000g2a-6.ucode

This issue have been addressed by ConnochaetOS by printing a warning
message next to the "firmware: failed to load" line that the
requested fimrware file is possibly non-free.

This solution wasn't "not accepted" - there was no response at all on
this list regarding this solution.

As far as I know this issue haven't been addressed yet at all by PureOS.

[GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website (was: what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?)

[Henry Jensen]

Hi,

I just visited the website of freeslack and noted there is a link to
Eric Hameleers website right on the front page. On his website he does
prominently offer and links to several third-party packages, including
complete proprietary software, such as Adobe Flash Player.

Since this website is mentioned in a positive way on freeslack.net
one may be tempted to install this non-free software. I suggest to
remove this link.

Regards,

Henry



Am Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:34:11 -0700
schrieb Ivan Zaigralin :

> A pretty good and very current summary of FreeSlack review process
> can be found here:
> 
> 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Donald,

ConnochaetOS maintainer here

Am Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:57:43 -0400
schrieb Donald Robertson :

> connochaetos had a much longer discussion, and I believe is still
> interested in endorsement (I will doublecheck that), but had an
> outstanding issue that the list felt barred their endorsement. This is
> the part in the process where we at the FSF have to make the final
> call. So it's not quite 'ready for FSF review', but more like 'ready
> for appeal'? I'm not quite sure how to word that. But going forward I
> want to make sure that someone in their position gets a response from
> FSF staff.

* Yes, we are still interested in endorsement.

* It wasn't "the list" as such, it was one person on this list who
  said because we are using a Debian derived blob-free kernel we
  wouldn't fulfill the criteria for endorsement. However, PureOS was
  endorsed with using basically the same Debian based kernel. 

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] PureOS added to endorsed distro list - what about the kernel?

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Zlatan,

Am Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:41:01 +0100
schrieb Zlatan Todoric :

> I will not read into thread but I can also add this: Debian kernel
> itself doesn't contain non-free firmware at all (they are separate
> packages in non-free repo that we sync too). Debian does allow if
> something wants to find firmware and it has non-free repo enabled,
> that it can be installed. This gets to bottom part...

This is well-known. However, it has been suggested on this list that
the act of requesting non-free firmware is something not wanted in a
free distribution, since it can lead users to install those non-free
firmware files, even if the distro itself does not provide them.

As Jason Self mentioned in his answer, the use of the Debian kernel by
PureOS should be considered a (freedom) bug.


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Am 7. August 2017 02:45:35 MESZ schrieb bill-auger 

>regarding the debianized kernel itself - other users on this list are
>far more knowledgeable on it's inner workings than i, so i wont add
>much
>about that - except to say that if the only problem is some log files
>that very few people will ever read then surely there must be a
>workarounds ranging from simple to not-very-complicated - e.g. an init
>script or cron task that scrubs the logs of naughty words, or patches
>taken from linux-libre to supress them entirely

Writing file names of proprietary software in log files is not ideal but it is 
far more preferable than failing to load the firmware file. There was a 
suggestion on this list, to print a warning in the log files: 

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00062.html

I think this would be the easiest and most practicable way. I will try to 
implement it at my next kernel build. 

Greetings,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Am 7. August 2017 03:40:08 MESZ schrieb Jason Self <j...@jxself.org>:
>Henry Jensen <hjen...@mailbox.org> 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] 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

[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

[Henry Jensen]

Am 4. August 2017 17:03:43 MESZ schrieb bill-auger :

> connochaetos has had a
>stable version for years and has been on this waiting list since 2010
>but i have not communicated with anyone from that group personally so
>it
>is not clear to me if they even know they are on that list - because
>that list has had such little attention over the years, it is not clear
>if the FSF is even aware of that list
>
>https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros

ConnochaetOS maintainer here. Yes, I am aware of the list and that the distro 
is on it. Indeed it seems clear that this list is unacknowledged and not an 
official waiting list.  I wonder if such an "official" list even exists.

To be honest, I found the whole procedure of  becoming an endorsed distro 
non-transparent. 

Greetings,

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS 14.2 released

[Henry Jensen]

I am proudly announcing ConnochaetOS 14.2, based on Slackware and Salix 14.2. 
As always it contains only free/libre software as defined by the Free Software 
Foundation (FSF). We are now using our own deblobbed Linux kernel, named 
"kernel-free" based on the de-blobbing mechanism done by Debian GNU/Linux.

ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre GNU/Linux distro for x86 computers with 
limited resources, based on Slackware and Salix OS. “Fully free” means, that 
ConnochaetOS does only contain free software and no proprietary, non-free 
software, blobs or firmware. Non-free parts of the upstream distros were 
removed and - where possible - replaced by free counterparts. ConnochaetOS 
retains full backwards compatibility with Slackware and Salix OS.

You can get ConnochaetOS at https://connochaetos.org

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] xorg-fonts (was:FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification)

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:58:01AM +0200, Henry Jensen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:15:51PM -0700, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> 
> > I have hard time figuring out the license for these:
> > 
> > font-bh-lucidatypewriter-100dpi-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> > font-bh-lucidatypewriter-75dpi-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> > 
> > No-mod clause is present in these:
> > 
> > font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> > font-bh-type1-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about font-bh-typewrityper and I removed it from the 
> ConnochaetOS' 
> repo. 


I meant font-bh-type1 ...





> 
> But am am not sure about font-bh-ludicatypewriter. Gentoo claims this fonts
> are "public domain" [0]
> 
> Furthermore Trisquel (and Debian) have this fonts included as part of 
> their xfonts-100dpi and xfonts-75dpi package. So I think it is okay to keep
> them until someone have seriously doubts.
> 
> [0] 
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/media-fonts/font-bh-lucidatypewriter-100dpi
 

[GNU-linux-libre] xorg-fonts (was:FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification)

[Henry Jensen]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:15:51PM -0700, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:

> I have hard time figuring out the license for these:
> 
> font-bh-lucidatypewriter-100dpi-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> font-bh-lucidatypewriter-75dpi-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> 
> No-mod clause is present in these:
> 
> font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> font-bh-type1-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz



You're right about font-bh-typewrityper and I removed it from the ConnochaetOS' 
repo. 

But am am not sure about font-bh-ludicatypewriter. Gentoo claims this fonts
are "public domain" [0]

Furthermore Trisquel (and Debian) have this fonts included as part of 
their xfonts-100dpi and xfonts-75dpi package. So I think it is okay to keep
them until someone have seriously doubts.

[0] 
https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/media-fonts/font-bh-lucidatypewriter-100dpi

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification

[Henry Jensen]

Hi,


On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:59:46AM -0700, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> Thanks! I can confirm the fonts. And actually, other Luxi fonts share the 
> same 
> license, so they are all as good as gone.

Which other luxi fonts do you mean exactly (name of packages)?


> ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz is clean: I am looking at the source, and 
> there is no jpegxr folder. Slackware must be using a clean version.

Yes, it seems so. However, jpegxr is still mentioned in the LICENSE file.

Regards,

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS 14.2 RC1

[Henry Jensen]

ConnochaetOS 14.2 RC1 has been released. This is the first release
candidate of upcoming ConnochaetOS 14.2.

ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre, though not (yet) endorsed by the FSF, 
GNU/Linux distribution for x86 computers with limited resources, 
based on Slackware and Salix OS. 

"Fully free" means, that ConnochaetOS does only contain free software and no
proprietary, non-free software, blobs or firmware. Non-free parts of the
upstream distros were removed and - where possible - replaced by free
counterparts. ConnochaetOS retains full backwards compatibility with
Slackware and Salix.

You can download the ConnochaetOS 14.2 RC1 ISO at
http://download.gna.org/connochaetos/

ConnochaetOS repo is the slack-n-free repo located at
https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/

where you can find binary and source packages

You can find the policy at
https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/purposes
and a more detailed explanation of the freedom policy at 
https://connochaetos.org/wiki/docs/fully-free-what-does-it-mean


Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 06:26:12PM -0700, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:


> We are very excited to announce an RC1 of FreeSlack 14.2. Since we spoke last 
> time, we purged mozilla firefox, mozilla thunderbird, and seamonkey, leaving, 
> as far as we can tell, nothing else that would violate FSDG. The purge 
> affected both 14.1 and 14.2 repositories, of course, so we no longer 
> distribute these packages in any way.
> 
> The wiki installation page still points to 14.1, but once RC1 goes gold in a 
> few days, it will change.
> 
> Regardless of 14.2 release status, we believe we are ready for a final look-
> over by an FSDG compliance agent.
> 
> Main wiki:
> 
> http://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start
> 
> Repositories:
> 
> http://freeslack.net/fxp/
> 
> DVDs:
> 
> http://freeslack.net/fxp-iso/
> 
> More recent source with scripts for the entire process,
> including deblobbing the DVD:
> 
> http://freeslack.net/fxp/freeslack64-14.2/source/fxp/
> 
> And finally, extra binary packages, including functional replacements for 
> some 
> of the omitted nonfree packages (lhasa, arj, icecat):
> 
> http://freeslack.net/fxp/freeslack64-14.2/fxp/
> 
> We are very hopeful this release finally meets FSDG. Please take a look and 
> let us know.


I compared he list of non-free and thus excluded packages of freeslack[0] with 
my list
of excluded packages in ConnochaetOS [1]. ConnochaetOS excluded following
packages which freeslack does not.

* ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz 
  ConnochaetOS provides an modified/libre version of Ghostscript
  without nonfree JPEG XR support, based on Parabola's build [2]

* x/font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz  
* x/font-misc-meltho-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz  
  This are non-free fonts according to Parabola's blacklist.[3] I
  re-checked and indeed the license of this two fonts is non-free
  because it allows no modification.

Regards,

Henry



[0] http://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=slackware_14.2
[1] https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/salix/i486/exclude-list-slackware.txt
[2] https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/ghostscript/PKGBUILD
[3] https://git.parabola.nu/blacklist.git/plain/blacklist.txt

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] seamonkey & thunderbird versus FSDG

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:00:04PM -0700, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:

> Dear Rubén and all of you folks, I have a hypothetical question.
> 
> I've been looking around for a FSDG-compliant versions of seamonkey and 
> thunderbird, and I am not finding anything current. Am I missing anything? It 
> occured to me that may be not that much has to be done. What do you think, if 
> we took, say, seamonkey, compiled it unbranded and changed "get new addons" 
> page so that it explains the situation (basically, go find your own free 
> addons), would that comply with FSDG? Just musing.

Parabola GNU/Linux has libre variants of Icedove (Thunderbird)[0] and 
Iceape (Seamonkey)[1]. 


Regards,

Henry


[0] https://www.parabola.nu/packages/libre/i686/icedove/

[1] https://www.parabola.nu/packages/libre/i686/iceape/

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] In search of FSDG certification

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

I think the name "FreeSlack" may be in conflict with the FSDG:


"We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree 
distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and 
Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light. This is 
because we expect that the distinction between the two would be lost in the 
process of communicating the message.

In particular, the principal name of the free distribution (“Foobar”, in this 
example) should not be part of the name of any nonfree distribution."

Regards,

Henry



Am 1. März 2016 22:42:01 MEZ, schrieb Ivan Zaigralin :
>Dear Linux-libreans :)
>
>I am writing on behalf of the FreeSlack project, where I am one of the
>lead maintainers, along with Matt Samudio. I am writing to this list on
>the advice of Joshua Gay of the FSF licensing team.
>
>On 03/01/2016 08:20 AM, Joshua Gay via RT wrote:
>> Yes, I think it sounds like it's worth taking a step in this
>direction.
>> The first thing I would do is join the GNU Linux-libre mailing lit if
>> you have not already done so and let them know about your project and
>> that would like their help in looking it over to make sure you meet
>all
>> of the GNU Free Distribution Guidelines (GFDG),
>> . 
>> 
>> I will have an internal discussion with the FSF licensing team and a
>> very quick look at the project to make sure nothing obvious stands
>out.
>> The most important thing is a project making a stated commitment to
>the
>> GFDG and promising to remove any nonfree bugs when they get reported
>in
>> a timely manner.
>
>These are indeed (some of) our commitments (we will amend our wiki to
>say so explicitly), and our official description follows:
>
>> FreeSlack is a Free eXpansion Pack for Slackware. The project's
>> primary goals are to document all non-free software in Slackware
>> distribution, and to make it easy for users to maintain a fully free
>> OS based on Slackware.
>>
>> Technically speaking, FreeSlack is a complete distribution and a
>> Slackware derivative, but we prefer to think of ourselves as a
>> shortcut to a free flavor of Slackware. We are not affiliated with
>> the Slackware project, have no developers in common, and share no
>> infrastructure. We use the term Slackware only in reference to the
>> stock OS distributed by Patrick Volkerding. One of our ambitions is
>> to become integrated within the existing Slackware community, and we
>> hope to achieve that by making the smallest possible changes needed
>> to deblob Slackware, while leaving all technical decisions up to the
>> Slackware team.
>
>[[ http://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start ]]
>
>We have a free DVD image which installs a deblobbed (free) derivative
>of
>Slackware, with package manager configured to use our free repository,
>so that the user is never compelled to obtain anything from the
>Slackware servers.
>
>[[ http://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=installation ]]
>
>The source code for the project is described and linked to as well.
>
>[[ http://freeslack.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=installation#source_code
>]]
>
>So we would like to go ahead and see if anyone would like to help us
>out
>through the certification process, and towards being officially
>FSDG-compliant. Please let us know what you think.

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

[GNU-linux-libre] Announcement: ConnochaetOS 14.1 beta 3

[Henry Jensen]

As of Easter 2015 ConnochaetOS has resurrected. After a nearly 3 year
death period I decided to bring ConnochaetOS back to life.

ConnochaetOS is a free/libre GNU/Linux distribution for x86 computers
with limited ressources. This means it contains only free software and
follows the spirit of the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines and
the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Technically ConnochaetOS follows the KISS principle (which means no
systemd, for example). It is build on top of the GNU/Linux
distributions Slackware and Salix OS.

ConnochaetOS 14.1 Beta 3 is available at http://www.connochaetos.org

[GNU-linux-libre] Libre version of Mozilla programs / slack-compatible repo

[Henry Jensen]

Hi,

I've managed to create libre versions of the Mozilla programs Icecat, Icedove 
and Iceape and made them available in the slack-n-free repo at 
connochaetos.org. This wouldn't  have been possible without the work of other 
people, especially from Parabola and Mageia. You are welcome to adopt them for 
your distros. 

Additionally I am working on identifying the non-free parts in Slackware and 
Salix in order to create a complete libre Slackware/Salix compatible repo and 
perhaps a distro. Besides the above mentioned Mozilla variants Linux-Libre and 
some other programs are already available.

Greetings,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Time to recheck Chromium?

[Henry Jensen]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:14:44 +0200
Jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote:

 On Wed, 04 Apr 2012, Karl Goetz wrote:
   looking forward to more opinions.
  
  For consistency sake, which version did you check?
 
 oh sorry forgot to include that,
 
 I've been scrolling through licensing notices in 18.0.1025.142 which
 is the latest codebase tagged as stable on 28 march

Stable chromium is at 23.0.1271.64 now. Any news on this?

[GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS 0.9.1 released

[Henry Jensen]

I am announcing the release of ConnochaetOS 0.9.1. This is a
maintenance release. The ConnochaetOS 0.9.0 ISO was downloaded 20,000
times. The Free Software Foundation examined every package very closely
and said, that we meet the FSF' criteria at this point. So we consider
that the ConnochaetOS project is a success. 

Since the 0.9.0 release many bugs were fixed. The default kernel was
upgraded to Linux-Libre 2.6.32.57 and many other packages were upgraded
and we released many security fixes.

ConnochaetOS 0.9.1 provides: 

- Kernel Linux-Libre 2.6.32.57
- The IceWM Desktop 1.3.7
- A lightweight webkit based web browser - xxxterm
- Goffice Word processor and Spredsheet - Abiword and Gnumeric
- Lightweight E-mail and IRC app, multimedia player, file manager, CD
  burning tool and even some small games

Optional are available:

- Kernel Linux-Libre 3.2.7
- Iceweasel-Libre in the versions 3.5.16.12 (LTS) and 10.0.2 (Current)
- LXDE 0.5.x

and many other packages.

ConnochaetOS is a GNU/Linux desktop distribution for old computers.
Minimum hardware requirements are:

- A i586 compatible processor (i. e. Pentium I)
- At least 64 MB RAM
- At least a 2 GB hard disk

ConnochaetOS is a libre GNU/Linux distribution which follows the
“Guidelines for Free System Distributions”. See
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html for
more information.

You can find ConnochaetOS at http://www.connochaetos.org

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net wrote:

 The 
 exception is calling themselves open source rather than free software but 
 RMS 
 said on this list that we don't make upholding our political views a 
 condition 
 of our endorsement.

Like I said before, I as the main maintainer call ConnochaetOS free
software, not open source. See also
http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/fully_free_-_what_does_it_mean and
additionally http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/purpose

If I encounter the term open source in the wiki I will correct it. At
the moment there is no mentioning of ConnochaetOS  as an open source
project in the wiki.

But there may be other people who help develop and test ConnochaetOS and
who say open source in the forum and occasionally in the wiki, e. g.
when they are writing documentation. In my opinion this is not such a
crucial point as, let's say, suggesting non-free software.

To illustrate the case even more: 

If a user would suggest non-free software in the forum or in the wiki,
I would correct it and would tell the user, that such suggestions are
undesirable. In case of recurrence, and if it is on purpose, the users
writing permissions would be removed. 

If a user would use the term open source in the wiki, I would correct
it, but I wouldn't admonish the user.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:04:04 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:


  This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.
 
 No. The previous expressions said there was no diference between 
 opensource and the Free Software movement. This expresses they are diferent.

No, FSFE never said that there is no difference between Open Source
Movement and the Free Software movement. It is crucial to distinct
between the terms and the movement. They said that the terms refer to
the same thing, but to different aspects.

 If you leave aside an ethical position, you are rejecting its value. It 
 is just a diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

No, it is something very different. Many christian organizations
provide help and care in other countries, even in islamic countries.
They act practical (e. g. provide food and medical care) but leave
aside christian ethical values (such as evangelize in the country).
That doesn't mean that they reject Christianity.

 Yes. Some people defend freedom but use the term opensource because they 
 have not understood what opensource implies. 

Open Source implies only that the source code is available, nothing
else. It is a pure technical term with no ethical value. Some people
seem to think that open source in fact has ethical values, just
opposite ethical values from the free software movement. That is simply
not true.

There are people who reject free software values. They may even use
GNU/Linux (often without knowing it), but they reject software
freedom. But this people aren't calling themselves open source. On
the contrary, they even reject the term Open Source, they refer to
Software Freedom as Open Source Ideology. To them Free Software and
Open Source indeed are the same thing. I think that those people are
confused with open source supporters.
 
  As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
  open source are most likely can be converted to be free software
  supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
  enough about the ethical values.
 
 
 This is possible but seldom true.
 
 I did not find that text on fsfe.org. Will you please cite the source? 

It is a logical conclusion, based on the FSFE documents. It is also
what the FSFE people are saying, including the FSFE president who I
spoke to last week. There was no objection to this at the FSFE meeting
I attended.

 It is equally my experience. Most people that have come to free software 
 for the technical values do not value freedom. 

That is not my experience. Most people who made a conscious technical
decision for open source can be told that free software is more than
technical advantage, that it also include ethical values. In fact, most
people come to free software for technical reasons in the first place.
I myself switched to GNU/Linux over 12 years ago because of the
technical disadvantages of the proprietary system I used before and
learned about software freedom later.

Like I said, there are some people who are using GNU/Linux more or less
by accident. This people won't mind to switch back to a proprietary
system if it becomes technical better. I have met such people before,
they used to be GNU/Linux users but then switched to a proprietary
system made by Apple, because they found it to be technical superior.
At no time they identified themselves as open source supporters. 
This aren't open source people, because they even rejected the term
open source. 

We shouldn't accuse people who are using the term open source to be
against software freedom and as such be enemies of software freedom,
because that wouldn't do justice to them.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues in lame, cdrkit, SDL, foomatic-filters, freepascal, unzip

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Karl,

As I wrote, it needs improvement :-)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:26:20 GMT
k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) wrote:

 1) That should be 
 echo '/usr/bin/7z x $@'  /usr/bin/unzip
 ($@ only has its magical qualities inside .)

Right.

 2) As far as I can tell, there are numerous cmdline and other
differences between p7zip and unzip.  If that's so, I think it would
be better just to leave unzip as command not found than provide a
radically incompatible replacement.

It depends. I think it would be better to give the user a minimalistic
unzip that might be incompatible with Info-ZIPs unzip than none at all.
However, I created now a script that makes the unzip replacement a
little more compatible:

#!/bin/bash
Opts=
cm=x
while getopts plvtTZ opt
do
   case $opt in
   p) Opts=$Opts -so;;
   v|l) cm=l;;
 t) cm=t;;
   T|Z) ;;
   \?)break;;
   esac
done
shift $((OPTIND-1))
7z $cm $Opts $@

As you see, it now supports Info-ZIPs unzip syntax for listing and
testing archives and writing to stdout, -T and -Z are recognized but
ignored. 

But I hope as well, that the issue will be resolved. According to the
note in match.c the copyright statement refers to recmatch(), which
is part of Info-ZIPs unzip since ages.

At http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/README.txt I found following note
for wcd, which apparently uses recmatch() as well:


2.3 Recmatch

I used the regular matching algorithm, recmatch(), of
Info-Zip's unzip program.

recmatch() was written by Mark Adler.

Copyright (C) 1990-1992 Mark Adler, Richard B. Wales, Jean-loup
Gailly, Kai Uwe Rommel and Igor Mandrichenko.

Mark Adler (original Zip author; UnZip decompression; writer
of recmatch() ) and Greg Roelofs (former UnZip
maintainer/co-author) have given permission to me to
distribute recmatch() (match.c,match.h) under the GNU General
Public License conditions as long as there's some sort of
comment included that indicates it came from Info-ZIP's
UnZip/Zip and was written by Mark Adler.

   Info-ZIP's home WWW site is at:

   http://www.info-zip.org/

So it seems we should contact Mark Adler.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:36:23 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:

 I suggest you regard official FSFE's positions from their website in:
 https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware
 https://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs-howto
 And disregard previous statements from FSFE officers that present very 
 different positions from those.

I don't see different positions between those documents and the
previous statements. The FSFE says (from
https://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html)

The goal was to seek fast commercialisation of Free Software and
acceptance of Free Software by the companies and venture capitalists of
the booming new economy. As a means to this end, they made a conscious
decision to leave aside all long-term issues (such as philosophy,
ethics and social effects) related to Free Software, feeling these
posed obstacles in the way of rapid acceptance by economy. They
proposed to focus on technical advantages only

Often used in good faith by people who refer to what Free Software
stands for, the term Open Source - originally defined to mean the
same thing as Free Software in terms of licenses and implementation -
has seen inflationary usage. 

This is exactly what FSFE representatives are telling.

Now the FSF version from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and
began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite
different from those of the free software movement.

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising
issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other
supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
social values.

I hope you notice the difference between those views. FSFE says, open
source supporters made a tactical decision to leave aside ethical
values. FSF says they rejected the ethical values. There is a
difference between leaving aside (meaning: you don't say, but you
still agree silently with a view) and reject (meaning: you are
opposed to a view). Additionally FSFE says that open Source is often
used in good faith(!) by people who refer to what Free Software stands
for. 

As a consequence FSFE says: We think, that people who use the term
open source are most likely can be converted to be free software
supporters, because they are just using the wrong term and don't know
enough about the ethical values.

FSF says: We gave up on open source supporters, because they reject
our ideas and have very different ideas.

[GNU-linux-libre] Freedom issues in lame, cdrkit, SDL, foomatic-filters, freepascal, unzip

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

a number of freedom bugs have been reported at the ConnochaetOS Bug
Report forum.

It seems that all this bugs exists in many (if not most) other free
distros as well, which is why report them here, too. I also didn't found
this issues at
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines

Personally I checked Parabola and Trisquel (couldn't locate BLAGs
source repo), but other free distros might very possible affected as
well.


lame

http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/topic.php?id=1494

In lame-3.98.4/frontend/portableio.c

* This code may be used and freely distributed as long as it
includes
* this copyright notice and the warranty information.

So it can be used and distributed, but says nothing about being able to
modify it.

Found in ConnochaetOS, Parabola and Trisquel


cdrkit
==
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/topic.php?id=1493
found this note:


By using a driver from an Apple CD and copying Apple software to
your CD, you become liable to obey Apple Computer, Inc. Software
License Agreements.

The file doc/genisoimage/README.hfs_boot appears to describe a process
where a driver is extracted from an Apple CD. That would be subject to
Apple's licensing terms, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the
package that says what they are. The free software community doesn't
typically look to Apple for pro-freedom activities, so I have my doubts
as to if it's free software or not.

This notice also appears in genisoimage/apple_driver.c and
apple_driver.8. 

So, README.hfs_boot describes a procedure how to obtain
non-free software, which is clearly not desirable. OTOH, as cdrkit
itsels is free software, and I am not sure if this is a case as
describe in the FSDG:

It could explain how to access filesystems of the proprietary
operating system, import settings from it, and so on. That would be
helping people install a free system distribution on a machine which #
already has proprietary software, which is good.

Found in ConnochaetOS, Parabola and Trisquel

SDL
===
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/topic.php?id=1492

found the license below in src/video/fbcon/riva_mmio.h. The license grant 
includes only use of the software. It doesn't mention modification or 
redistribution.

Found it as well in Trisquel  and likely in Parabola (couldn't find the source 
on their site). 

foomatic-filters

http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/topic.php?id=1491

found this in in:

test/lsbfuncs.sh
shfuncs.sh
test/tcm.sh
test/tetapi.sh

# All rights reserved. No part of this source code may be reproduced,
# stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
# means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
# except as stated in the end-user licence agreement, without the prior
# permission of the copyright owners.

This is clearly not free.

It depends on what the end-user licence agreement actually is. According to 
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2009-October/006190.html
 it refers to the Artistic License - question is - which version?

Found it in Trisquel as well. I suspect it is also in Parabola, but I couldn't 
locate the source package.


Freepascal (fpc)

http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/topic.php?id=1490
found the following in these two files:

fpcbuild-2.4.2/fpcsrc/packages/opengl/src/gl.pp
fpcbuild-2.4.2/fpcsrc/packages/opengl/src/glu.pp

Quote
** Copyright 1996 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
** All Rights Reserved.
**
** This is UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE of Silicon Graphics, Inc.;
** the contents of this file may not be disclosed to third parties, copied 
or
** duplicated in any form, in whole or in part, without the prior written
** permission of Silicon Graphics, Inc.

I'm not sure how unpublished proprietary source code ended up in there, but it 
clearly isn't free.
Found in Parabola and Trisquel as well. 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:55:45 +0100
Michael Dorrington michael.dorring...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am in the UK and I understand the difference so it isn't only America.
 And I am fairly sure that LibrePlanet Italia understands the difference
 http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanetItalia . The terms are only
 interchangeable by people/groups who don't understand or want to
 purposefully confuse them. Have a (re-)read of the following:

I know and read this documents. I only try to understand why there are
so different views about this issues in the free software movement,
namely FSF and FSFE (at least here in Germany), which is a little
irritating.

As I said, I hope to discuss it tomorrow with the president with the
FSFE, and I am curious what results the talks of Richard Stallman with the
FSFE will have.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Quiliro,

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:11:51 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:

 Richard said he is discussing this issue with FSFE. FSF does not support 
 that position. In fact, FSF regards opensource software as something 
 good but the opensource ideas as bad. It sounds contradictory but it 
 isn't because some of what they do agrees with what we do but not all so 
 the terms are not interchangeable.

Maybe things are a little different in America, but here in Europe the
terms are indeed interchangeable. Here is no such thing like a distinct
open source movement. I never met an open source activist who said
I am pro open source, but against free software or vice versa.
Meanwhile I read about the history of the term open source,
foundation of the OSI and the schism between open source and free
software. Indeed I think, that this was a local american issue. It had
no effect here, because at the time it happended there was
practically no free software community in existence over here.

Regardless of this I still prefer free software because the term
open source is abused in some cases and therefore not clear. But I
don't see open source as an distinct movement. Another local example:
In a few month there will be a local exhibition called OpenRheinRuhr,
see http://openrheinruhr.de/. The preamble says:

Die OpenRheinRuhr ist eine Messe mit Kongress rund um das Thema Freie
Software. Translation:
OpenRheinRuhr is an exhibition with a congress on the topic free
software. The FSFE participates at that exhibition. (Side note: I
participate in the call for papers and want to speak about Linux Libre.)

  a member who uses the
  term open source can always refer to the FSFE and say Hey, the FSFE
  said, it is okay when I say open source. Since 90 percent of our
  community is living in Europe that would be a reasonable point and one
  could hardly argue against that.
 
 Please get an official written statement from FSFE stating that. It 
 would clear up things for all of us.

I think I linked such a statement from Matthias Kirschner earlier. He is
Fellowship Coordinator and the Coordinator of the German team of the
FSFE, so in a sense he is the local authority for the FSFE in Germany
and as such authorized to make official statements.

Source:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002883.html
Matthias Kirschner wrote in german (translation follows):

Richard hat in letzter Zeit soweit ich gesehen habe nicht mehr von zwei
unterschiedlichen Gemeinschaften gesprochen. Die FSFE hat dies nicht
gemacht. Freie Software und Open Source sind Begriffe für ein und die
selbe Sache. Wir verwenden den Begriff Freie Software
http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, aber wir sehen Leute
die andere Begriffe verwenden nicht außerhalb unserer Gemeinschaft.
[...]
Die FSFE empfiehlt, wie oben schon geschrieben, selbst zu denken.
Verwende entweder Freie Software oder Open Source, was du meinst, was
besser ist. Hatte ja ganz oben geschrieben, dass wir keine Strategien
vorschreiben wollen. Wenn jemand der Ansicht ist, dass es er mit dem
Begriff Open Source Freie Software besser erklären kann, dann soll er
das tun.

English Translation:

Richard [Stallman], as I saw it, didn't speak about two different
communities in the last time. The FSFE didn't do it. Free Software and
Open Source are terms for the one and same thing. We use the term free
software, http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, but we
don't see people who use other terms outside our community
[...]
The FSFE recommends to think yourself. Use [the term] free software or
open source, whatever you think is better. [...] we don't dictate
strategies. If someone thinks that he can explain free software better
with the term open source then he should do it.

If I'm lucky I will have the opportunity to meet Karsten Gerloff,
President of the FSFE (the whole FSFE, not just Germany) at Wednesday
and ask him about this matter.

Regards,

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] Non-FSDG endorsements by FSF (was: Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS)

[Henry Jensen]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:27:53 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:

 On 23/08/11 03:42, Henry Jensen wrote:

  The naming situation in BSD is not like the situation in GNU/Linux.
  FreeBSDis the whole system, kernel + userland. The kernel alone is
  just called the FreeBSD kernel. And even if they referred only to the
  kernel, as far as I know the situation with non-free blobs in the
  FreeBSD kernel is even worse than with the Linux Kernel.
 
 I agree. It should not be mentioned as endorsed. A comment should be 
 included as with other non-free distros.

I just saw that FreeBSD seems to be removed now from the list. But the BSD 
daemon is still in the free software gang logo. Hold on, it seems, that even 
OpenBSDs Puffy is there:

http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/working/w/charac-more.png

Also on the list is Thunderbird, 
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/thunderbird, which recommends non-free 
software, according to 
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#Thunderbird

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:59:46 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:

  At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
  FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
  (personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
  list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
  FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).
 
 
  I don't see FreeBSD as an endorsed free OS. Will you please provide 
  the link to report that bug?
 
 Possibly they are refering to its kernel which I beleive is free 
 http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/freebsd . Nevertheless, it 
 shouldn't be endoresed because it promotes non free software.

The naming situation in BSD is not like the situation in GNU/Linux.
FreeBSDis the whole system, kernel + userland. The kernel alone is
just called the FreeBSD kernel. And even if they referred only to the
kernel, as far as I know the situation with non-free blobs in the
FreeBSD kernel is even worse than with the Linux Kernel.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:57:10 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:


I don't see where the problem is to erradicate 
things that do bad such as hunger, infant death and user subjugating 
software.

The problem is the attitude. I can propagate my message in a positive
style (Use free software to be in control of your computer) or in a
negative style (Don't use proprietary software, it subjugates you and
should be eradicated). With the former message I tell, that free
software is good for users and as such has a positive message. The
latter one is negative argument which has often a paradoxical and
defensively effect, which can even lead to the result, that some people
think that I am a lunatic. Simple marketing psychology. 

 The point is: If you seek FSFs endorsement for ConnochaetOS, I would 
 think that you agree with their philisophy and not with OSI's 
 http://osi.org

I didn't mention OSI anywhere. Of course I support the free software
philosophy. But I don't think it would be good to exclude open source
activists or people who use the term open source instead of free
software. There is no sharp boundary between those camps anyway. 

Freedom takes sacrifice.

George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Quiliro,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:50 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote:

 It is OK to use the terms in a positive way but not to be distracted 
 from the issue of freedom. A position more according to FSF and in the 
 positive sense as you propose would be: Use ONLY free software to be in 
 control of your computer.

Using only free software is the ideal situation, the goal that have to
be reached. But you can't reach people if you claim you possess the
absolute truth and all others do not. So one must lead people towards
free software carefully, one step at a time.

If someone told you he wanted to replace, let's say, MS Office with
Libre Office on his proprietary system, would you assist him in
installing it? Or would you decline and say first you must run a
completely free system like Trisquel, and then I help you?

The FSF supports installing software on proprietary system as a first
step, see http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving/windows/

At http://www.fsf.org/working-together/gang/ the FSF even endorses
FreeBSD, which is known to have proprietary software in their ports.
(personally I think, FreeBSD shouldn't be listed there. If they must
list a BSD system it should be OpenBSD, which has, in contrast to
FreeBSD, an explicit free software agenda).

What I want to say with that is, that the FSF is more diverse then you
perhaps know. Their argumentation is quite diverse as well. Many
aspects speak for free software, ethical, technological, economical,
security reasons and so on. Why should one concentrate only on one
line of argument? If I can't someone convince with the software
freedom argument, why shouldn't I try the security argument (and
frankly, I have been more successful with the security argument in the
past). The FSF uses such technical arguments as well.
 
  Freedom takes sacrifice.
  George W. Bush, 2005, about the war in Iraq
 
 You cannot compare searching for freedom with attacking another country 
 and killing people. I do not propose hurting anybody or killing people 
 for the sake of freedom. That is contradictory. Please do not use that 
 type of camparison. It makes me feel you think that I am equal to that 
 terrible person. It is for me as if I would compare you to Hitler.

My apologies, I don't wanted to compare you with Bush. I wanted to show
where a view that claims to be the absolute truth can lead. You compared
proprietary software with hunger and death. I think proprietary
software is wrong, but I wouldn't compare it with scourges of humanity.
Like a Christian who may think that Paganism is wrong, or a Socialist
that Capitalism is wrong. They try to change it, but they
certainly don't have an agenda to eradicate it (disregarding small
extreme factions).

The problem is, if you say, that a certain philosophy or idea is so
evil as hunger and death you make the first step in spreading hatred.
Not only towards that philosophy or idea but to the people who stand
for it as well. The next person who hear you say, that a philosophy or
an idea is so evil, may come to the conclusion that the people who
are standing for this idea are evil as well and should be punished.
Before you know it there will be hatred against other people, with all
its consequences. Spreading hatred is always wrong, no matter for which
cause.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:03:48 +
Ineiev ine...@gnu.org wrote:

  Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.
 
 It is being discussed whether a free distribution may want to represent itself
 as Open Source.

I think there is a misunderstanding. ConnochaetOS, as far as I as the
maintainer can stand for it, represents itself explicitly as Free
Software.

However, I am not alone and there are people who help the project,
especially in the forum by answering questions from  users and doing
some documentation in the wiki. They feel obligated to free software.
But they may use sometimes wordings that may look unfortunate by some
other people in the Free Software Community.

This is how we came here. Now, there are some points that should be
clarified:

1. The Free System Distribution Guidelines doesn't require to use or to
avoid explicit wordings. It requires that a free distro must take care
not to recommend nonfree software. The FSDG covers content of a free
distros documentation, but there is no prescribed terminology. If I am
mistaken, please correct me.

2. In the explicit case it is discussed if it is okay, if some members
of a free distro use the term open source in its documentation. I had
a discussion with a representative of the FSFE about this matter, and
the FSFEs summarized point of view is We prefer the term free
software, but if you say open source it is fine with us, because it
is the same thing. So, from the FSFEs point of view there should be no
problem.

I myself see this matter a little more severe. I think the term free
software should be used, and I correct wordings occasionally. But
since many new users are involved and the community is growing I can't
control every sentence they write. What's more: In a hypothetical
discussion in our community about this issue, a member who uses the
term open source can always refer to the FSFE and say Hey, the FSFE
said, it is okay when I say open source. Since 90 percent of our
community is living in Europe that would be a reasonable point and one
could hardly argue against that.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hi Ruben,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:03:34 +0200
Rubén Rodríguez ru...@gnu.org wrote:

 Even if you found individuals involved with the FSFE who believe that
 Free Software and Open Source are the same movements, that is not the
 FSFE position: http://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.html
 
 You may also find people involved with the FSF who think like that,
 anyone can be wrong. But finding many people being wrong never was a
 good argument anyway. ;)

The document you linked is not necessarily a contradiction. It merely
says that the term free software is preferable to open source.

The persons I spoke and wrote to are not just anyone within the FSFE,
it was, amongst others, the Fellowship Coordinator and the Coordinator
of the German team of the FSFE, so I must account his statements as
official statements of the FSFE. I spoke to him at a conference about
this issue and discussed it with him at the german FSFE mailing list,
see
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002883.html
(in german, partly english translation as follows):

Richard [Stallman], as I saw it, didn't speak about two different
communities in the last time. The FSFE didn't do it. Free Software and
Open Source are terms for the one and same thing. We use the term free
software, http://www.fsfe.org/campaigns/whyfs/whyfs.de.html, but we
don't see people who use other terms outside our community

The FSFE recommends to think yourself. Use [the term] free software or
open source, whatever you think is better. [...] we don't dictate
strategies. If someone thinks that he can explain free software better
with the term open source then he should do it.

Again, he speaks as we, the FSFE, thus as an official FSFE
representative. And, what's more, there were no objection on the list
to his view, besides my own.

I pointed him to the document at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. He
suggested, that this document is outdated, implying that it is not
valid any more.

Partly translation from 
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2010-December/002887.html

If I remember correctly the main part of it is from 2007.
Unfortunately I can't find a more current interview in which Richard
speaks about two different communities.

As I have explained, I see the issue the same way as Jason, I only
wanted to point out, that there are different views about it in the free
software community. In the FSF the two-different-communtities view is
dominant, in the FSFE it is the two-terms-but-same-thing view.
Anyway, I think this discussion is a little off-topic on this list.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Jason,

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net wrote:

Thanks for your remarks. You mentioned mainly some poor wordings at the
web site. I am with you on this, but not all members of our community
are very familiar with the appropriate wording. 

However, the wording it is not completely controllable within a diverse
community. And as far as the FSDG and the Checklist at
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist goes, it
is not mentioned, that it is a requirement to avoid certain phrases.

 I noticed that the website makes several references to ConnochaetOS as 
 a Linux distribution, rather than GNU/Linux. One example is here [1] but 
 there are others.

Ah yes, I change it to GNU/Linux whenever I encounter such a
reference. 

 Also, is suggesting that people change their kernel to one with proprietary 
 software something that should be suggested [2], even with the disclaimer 
 that 
 it's not recommended? If it's not recommended why even mention it?

You are right, this one I took serious and removed it.

 And... everything in ConnochaetOS is open source? It's also free software 
 too 
 I hope? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Of course it should be free software. It will be changed when
discovered.

BTW: I recently had a discussion on this one with some people from the
Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSF's sister organization in
Europe. Many people at the FSFE have a different point of view on this.

They prefer the term free software as well, but they believe that
open source and free software is the same and they don't think that
both free software and open source community have different goals.
So free software and open source are considered as the same
community at the FSFE. You see, the view on this topic is not
homogeneous in the Free Software Community itself.


Regards,

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] Request for Endorsement for ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre GNU/Linux operating system for the
desktop with old computers in mind, but with modern software.
ConnochaetOS contains only free software, according to the GNU
Guidelines for Free System Distributions.

We have been added to the incoming distros list at librelanet.org in
October 2010, see http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros 

We recently released our first stable version 0.9.0 and we believe that
ConnochaetOS is ready to be evaluated for being endorsed by the Free
Software Foundation.

The web site is at http://www.connochaetos.org

Binary packages are available at http://www.connochaetos.org/os/i586/ 

Source code packages along with the PKGBUILDs are available at
http://www.connochaetos.org/os/src/ 

Bugs, including freedom issues, can be reported at
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum/index.php?cat=11#cat11 or by using
the contact form at http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/contact

The central tool to communicate is our public forum at
http://www.connochaetos.org/forum

We also have a group at identi.ca which can be used to contact us, see
https://identi.ca/group/connochaetos

We have a clear policy to only include free software. Our Purposes and
aims can be read at http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/purpose. Packages
which have freedom issues according to the Guidelines for Free System
Distributions and the list at
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist will be modified,
replaced or removed.

The server ConnochaetOS is hosted on is independent from company
interests and funded by ourselves. Commercial advertisements that have
been displayed on the web site before have been removed. We rely only on
donations now.

Since our initial announcement one years has passed, but our community
has a history of already 9 years, coming originally from a GNU/Linux
distribution for old computers which didn't follow the FSDG on purpose
back then (OTOH, the FSDG and Linux-Libre didn't exist back in 2002). 

We believe that our goal to provide an free desktop operating system
for old and low-spec computers is unique in the world of free operating
systems which follow the Guidelines for Free System Distributions, and
is wanted by many users. One Indication that support this statement is,
that our beta versions and release candidates have been downloaded 30
to 50 times per day. Since our stable release two days ago, the
ConnochaetOS Installation ISO image have been downloaded over 2,000
times. So we think ConnochaetOS should be added to the list of Free
GNU/Linux distributions.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FSDG-issue in xdg-utils?

[Henry Jensen]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:48:24 +1000
Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:

 It would be nice if you could say what browsers/where to find them, so
 we don't all have to go searching.

I didn't mention them because I saw that xdg-utils differs a lot on
various distros. E. g. in the original  version of /usr/bin/xdg-open
version I use there is the line

 
BROWSER=firefox:mozilla:epiphany:konqueror:chromium-browser:google-chrome:$BROWSER

from which at least google-chrome is proprietary. So I replaced the
line with 

 BROWSER=icecat:midori:xxxterm:epiphany:konqueror:$BROWSER

As far as I can tell this very line doesn't exist e. g. in Trisquel's
version of xdg-utils, but there may be other issues. For example I saw
this at my Trisquel box:

$ grep google /usr/bin/xdg-*
/usr/bin/xdg-settings:Set the default web browser to google-chrome.desktop
/usr/bin/xdg-settings:xdg-settings set default-web-browser 
google-chrome.desktop

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] How do you handle references to non-free software in public forums?

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Sam,

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:51:50 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:

  Non-free software should be discouraged if someone brings them up.
  All right, but in case of many new users or a high-traffic forum a
  small team wouldn't be able to discourage every reference to non-free
  software because of their limited resources.
 
 In case of many new users I would first of all get suspicious. It means 
 you either excel at marketing (in which case you're welcome to do the 
 same trick for gNewSense ;) ) or you suck at it and nobody knows that 
 the distro is supposed to be fully free.

Well, I don't know if I am good at marketing or if I suck. I get
constantly new users, some are blaming me for using linux-libre because
their hardware won't work. Some are requesting that I use the vanilla
kernel. I regularly respond to such posts, pointing them to h-node.com
and try to explain why it is important to use free and avoid non-free
software. Some people understand this, but some are not. Well, I heard
rumors that there might be a external NON-FSDG repo or even a NON-FSDG
fork in the planning. If it will happen I have no means or the will to
stop it. It is free software, after all.

But: I regularly read the suggestion use non-free at Debian help forums.
How can I respond to the same suggestion from arbitrary users posting at
the forum?

 Or not, and then your community implodes and all your 
 worries are over. :)

Let's hope not ...

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] How do you handle references to non-free softwarein public forums?

[Henry Jensen]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net wrote:

 Henry Jensen hjen...@gmx.de wrote ..
  If it occurs at the forum of a FSDG compliant distro that now and then
  non-free software is mentioned, how do you handle this?
 
 I think gNewSense does this pretty well by setting Community Guidelines [1] 

This Guidelines are pretty good. May I use them as a blueprint?

 I think a how to amounts to the same thing, and is probably worse than 
 someone just posting a question. A question thread can be locked, perhaps 
 after 
 a moderator has posted a short message saying there's no help for proprietary 
 software. If someone posts a reply or a step-by-step HOW TO about running a 
 specific piece of proprietary software it absolutely should be deleted, IMHO, 
 and consideration given to anyone that repeatedly breaks the community 
 guidelines.


If I understand you correctly, references to NON-FSDG-Software should be
treated the same way as completely non-free software.

I had a post like this in mind:
http://trisquel.info/en/forum/adding-packages-repository#comment-10029

I objected that posting a reference to this NON-FSGD software at the
Trisquel forum is probably not a good idea, but the author of the post
said that no one seems to have an issue with this and Non-FSDG
software isn't non-free software. Since no one of the Trisquel
team (I am a simple Trisquel user) responded I wasn't sure how the rest
of the free software community sees this matter.

  Deleting the posts would be censorship and I think this would be not
  good.
 
 I don't think it amounts to censorship. After all, there are plenty of other 
 places where they could pose their question/post their how-to. I think it 
 comes 
 down to the question of: Should people be able to use *your* project 
 infrastructure to provide advice/support/etc on how to use proprietary 
 software?

Good point. But sometime it is hard to know where to draw the line. Of
course, if someone would post a link for a proprietary software with
instructions to download and install it, it would be a clearly
violation. But goes the same for NON-FSDG software? What about the very
mentioning of NON-FSDG Software and distros? I think there is a point
where this is not controllable nor fixable. E. g. some FSDG distros are
based on NON-FSDG distros. It is only natural that the NON-FSDG distro
is mentioned several times. E. g. gNewSense has the string ubuntu in
almost every package file name.

[GNU-linux-libre] How do you handle references to non-free software in public forums?

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

If it occurs at the forum of a FSDG compliant distro that now and then
non-free software is mentioned, how do you handle this?

The question came to my mind because of
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist#Only_Suggests_Free_Software

Deleting the posts would be censorship and I think this would be not
good.

Non-free software should be discouraged if someone brings them up.
All right, but in case of many new users or a high-traffic forum a
small team wouldn't be able to discourage every reference to non-free
software because of their limited resources.

What about references of NON-FSDG software? Let's say if someone would
post instructions how to install a Linux kernel with included blobs or
any other software mentioned on
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines?

I can imagine that there is a situation where such posts are overseen by a 
small team.

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] ConnochaetOS 0.9 RC1 released

[Henry Jensen]

The upcoming ConnochaetOS 0.9 reached the RC1 release and should be
ready for testing. All open bugs were fixed in this release and it
should run pretty stable by now.

If you have some time please have a look at it. ConnochaetOS comes with
LTS kernel 2.6.32-libre, X.org, IceWM desktop, a webkit based
lightweight web browser, mail and chat/IM programs, word processor and
spreadsheet and multimedia programs. ConnochaetOS runs on hardware as
old as a Pentium I with 64 MB RAM. 



About ConnochaetOS
==
ConnochaetOS is a fully free/libre operating system for the desktop
with old computers in mind, but with modern software. The name
ConnochaetOS derives from Connochaetes, the scientific name for Gnu.
ConnochaetOS will contain only free software, according to the GNU
Guidelines for Free System Distributions.

The project website is at http://www.connochaetos.org

You can get the ISO at http://sourceforge.net/projects/connochaetos/ 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] has dosemu freedom issues?

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Sam,

I am CC'ing this to the Parabola GNU/Linux list, since they have dosemu in their
community repo.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:29:48 +0100
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:

 So dosemu is libre and FreeDOS is libre, but FreeDOS can only be built 
 with non-free tools? 

Exactly.

 That last step is not good, but it's beyond what we 
 should worry about, IMO. 

After some thinking I am not sure about that. Dosemu is in Debian
contrib (it isn't included in Trisquel or gnewsense), a repo for free
software which depends on non-free software to use or build.

The source package of Debians dosemu contains a binary and a source
tarball of FreeDOS, the accompanied README states:

The dosemu team itself has not compiled everything from those
sources, but most are copied and stripped down (deleting files and
symlinking duplicates) to tailor a minimal system. This work has been
done manually (no script) and the resulting tree is simply tar'ed to
build dosemu-freedos-bin.tgz.

In more concrete words: To build FreeDOS binaries you have to use
non-free software. By delivering the FreeDOS sources (required by the
GPL) we would suggest, that the user installs non-free software, which
is not desirable.

  OpenWatcom is released under the Open Watcom Public License. The FSF 
  license list don't 
  mention it.
  
  Has anyone more insight regarding this matter?
 
 There's a debian-legal thread about it [1].
 
 At first glance I'd say at least section 2.2(c) is a problem: if you 
 modify the software and install it at your workplace, then you have to 
 make your modifications available to everyone, not just those you gave 
 the binaries to.
 
 [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg34680.html

Yes, you're right, additionally there seem to be other matters, e. g.
12.1(c) strikes me as even more obvious non-free, as it says that the
license terminates if you commence an action for patent infringement
against Sybase or any Contributor.

So, I think that, because of this matter, Dosemu should be listed on 
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines

(theoratical) fixes would be
a) to port FreeDOS to djgpp
b) to replace FreeDOS with another free DOS that can be built with free
software (someone mentioned a nasm port of RxDOS, but I haven't found a
copy)


Regards,

Henry

[GNU-linux-libre] has dosemu freedom issues?

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,.

a user of my distro asked if we can include dosemu, another user said, that 
we can't because dosemu has freedom issues.

To quote the user:
the DOS part needs OpenWatcom (OSS, but NOT libre) or TurboC/TurboC++ (gratis 
not libre) 
to build. The DOS part refers to FreeDOS.

OpenWatcom is released under the Open Watcom Public License. The FSF license 
list don't 
mention it.

Has anyone more insight regarding this matter?

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] The Free Kernel In Debian Squeeze

[Henry Jensen]

Thanks for your work. As I see it the main difference between the
Squeeze kernel and Linux-Libre is the ability to load non-free firmware
and as such the very mentioning of non-free firmware files in the
soruce code.

The Squeeze kernel is still able to load non-free firmware, but it's
not delivered in the main repository (it is in the non-free repo,
AFAIK).

Linux-Libre isn't able to load non-free firmware, even if you obtain
the non-free firmware files somehow.

So, it's a matter of attitude. Do we give the user the opportunity to
use non-free software if he wishes to do so, despite the
recommendations, or do we prevent it proactively? 

For example, GNU Icecat doesn't suggest non-free plugins. But Icecat is
still able to load non-free plugins, it is not prevented proactively.
Of course, the main difference is, that non-free software isn't
mentioned in the Icecat source code (at least I assume so, I didn't
check), where non-free software is explicitly mentioned hard-coded in
the source code, so the situation is only slightly comparable.

Giving the user the ability to use non-free software without any
comment leads to a situation where unexperienced users might be not
knowing what they are doing. For example Debian help forums are full of
advices for novice users to activate the non-free repository. Same goes
for Fedora where novice users are encouraged in forums to integrate
non-official repositories with non-free software.

To proactively prevent the use of non-free software on the other hand 
is censorship. I recall RMS pointing out in an interview that any free
operating system should allow to do anything. I CC him, maybe he has
some thoughts to add.

Kind regards,

Henry



On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net wrote:

 In light of Debian's recent announcement [1] I and others were interested in 
 how
 well the Debian folks cleaned up their kernel. I proceeded to grab the source
 for the Squeeze kernel, ran the linux-libre deblobbing script on it, and then
 diffed it against the original to see what had changed.
 
 The full deblob log [2]  diff [3] is available to anyone that's interested in
 knowing.
 
 [1] http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215
 [2] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_deblog_log.txt
 [3] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_diff.txt

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] debian squeeze kernel freed?

[Henry Jensen]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:47:55 -0700
John Sullivan jo...@fsf.org wrote:

 No, they did their own work to remove proprietary firmware from the
 upstream kernel.

I found this:

http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing

It would be really interesting to know where the differences between 
linux-libre and the Debian squeeze kernel are and if the squeeze kernel would 
meet the
GNU Guidelines for Free System Distributions (only the kernel, not the whole 
system, 
since Debian, to the best of my knowledge, still has non-free repository).

[GNU-linux-libre] Review of Trisquel 4.0 at Distrowatch

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

I was glad to find a review of Trisquel 4.0 at Distrowatch
at http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20101004#feature

I am very interested  in the different GNU/Linux distros, especially 
in the fully free ones for different reasons. One reason is, that I am 
part of a team that is creating a distro ourselves.

Anyway, the review itself leaves the reader with a positive impression 
of Trisquel. The Author, Jesse Smith, praises Trisquels  layout founds 
that performance was nicely balanced with eye candy. No argument from me here.

What bothers me is, that the author couldn't resist to attack fully free 
distros in general a little bit. He asserts that the reasons that he doesn't 
use fully free distros are that most of these 100%-free software distros are 
based upon other distribution (I belive, there are some which don't) and
that making a more-free Fedora or Ubuntu sounds a bit like comparing vanilla 
ice cream with extra vanilla.

While I can understand this reason from a technical point of view (even it is 
not 
fully correct), with his second reason I can't aggree:

He writes:
I am pro open-source software. Given the choice between a FOSS solution and a 
proprietary alternative, I would rather use the FOSS option. But in preferring 
libre solutions, I don't have anything against closed-source programs. 
Some FOSS-only distributions strike me as being more anti-proprietary than 
pro-free. [...] Frankly, I'm less interested in a revolution[...]

I am thinking about answering him, explaining, that he confuses open source 
with free software and what free software is all about. Maybe you want to 
write 
him as well - or would this be futile?

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] 3D with free software

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Quiliro,


On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:52:28 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have checked http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/index_html/video . Do all the
 cards that do not say anything about not supporting 3D can use 3D with free
 softwre?

When a card is not mentioned you have to assume that it is NOT working.

However: The FSF hardware database is quite incomplete. There is some more data 
at 
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/GNUCHILE/Hardware. But even this list seems not to 
be maintained regularly (I sent the maintainer an update 3 weeks ago but 
nothing 
happened yet).

As for nvidia cards I have to say, that 3D is working with nouveau and 
Gallium3D with my
GeForce 8400 GS but has some problems with the (onboard) GeForce 7025 I use at 
work.
So it's mostly tryerror.

Older ATI cards should work with 3D. I once had an ATI with Radeon 9250 chip 
that worked 
flawless with free drivers.

With Intel graphics chips you should have have no problems (mostly).

Kind regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] more http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Sam,

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:41:40 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:

  - ttf-thai, in Debian based distros the name is ttf-thai-tlwg,
  contains non-free fonts. thaifonts-scalable-libre exists.[2]
 
 What's non-free about it?

I quote the mail I wrote to the Parabola GNU/linux List (where ttf-thai is 
blacklisted):

Since the ttf-thai package contains many non-free fonts and is on the 
blacklist, 
but also contains free fonts, I have created ttf-thai-libre as replacement.

Included free fonts
---
- Garuda
Original public domain, modified under GPL

- Norasi
Copyright (C) 1999, The National Font Project (v.beta).
Yannis Haralambous, Virach Sornlertlamvanich and Anutara Tantraporn.
All rights reserved.
Modified under GNU General Public License, with creators' permission,
by Thai Linux Working Group (TLWG).

- Purisa
Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Poonlap Veerathanabutr
poon...@linux.thai.net, GPL license

- TlwgMono, TlwgTypewriter, TlwgTypist, TlwgTypo
Licensed under GPL acccording to README and since
they imported FreeMono.sfd, which is also licensed under GPL

Removed (possible) non-free fonts
-
- Kinnari
COPYING states:
Copyright (C) 1999 Db Type. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (C) 2007 National Electronics and Computer Technology Center.
All Rights Reserved.

- Loma
COPYING states:
Copyright (C) 2003, NECTEC. All rights reserved.
The source files state:
 (c) NECTEC, 2003. All rights reserved.\nModified under GNU General Public 
License by TLWG
Remark: I found this suspicious. It isn't mentioned that the author gave the 
permission
to modify it under GPL. So I removed it.

- Sawasdee
COPYING states:
Copyright (C) 2007 Pol Udomwittayanukul webnai...@gmail.com.
All rights reserved.

- Umpush
COPYING states:
Copyright (C) 2003 NECTEC. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2007 Widhaya Trisarnwadhana widha...@gmail.com. All rights 
reserved.
The source files state:
Copyright (c) 2003 NECTEC. All rights reserved.\nCopyright (c) 2007 Widhaya 
Trisarnwadhana. All rights reserved. Modified under GNU General Public 
Licenseby TLWG.
Remark: Same issue as with Loma

- Waree
Copyright (c) 2003 by Bitstream, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Kind regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] more http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

[Henry Jensen]

Hello, 

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:06:59 +0930
Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:

 I've started comparing gNewSense's two blacklists with the NONFSDG [1],

Where can I find gNewSense's Blacklist (aside from plain Bugreports)?
I have found http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/SuspectedNonFree. Is there 
something else?

 * Under 'references', should we be including more then one? 

I'm for it. On Security/Vulnerability lists like Bugtraq ot the CVE list
it is a good and common practice to reference more then one source, generally
bug reports.

And while we are at it, I would like to mention another blacklist here:
http://www.parabolagnulinux.org/docs/blacklist.txt from the upcoming
distro Parabola GNU/Linux.

 == Potential Additions ==

I have two more:

- psutils:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?30782. psutils-libre exists.[1]

- ttf-thai, in Debian based distros the name is ttf-thai-tlwg,
contains non-free fonts. thaifonts-scalable-libre exists.[2]


Kind regards,

Henry

[1] http://www.connochaetos.org/misc/psutils-libre-1.17.tar.gz
[2] http://www.connochaetos.org/misc/thaifonts-scalable-libre-0.4.14.tar.gz

[GNU-linux-libre] Free 3d drivers?

[Henry Jensen]

Hello,

I just discovered free3d.org. I was wondering which of this 
3D drivers is not really free (because of blobs in corresponding modules 
in the Torvalds kernel or required proprietary firmware).

I know that nouveau is blob-free since 2.6.33 or so. What about radeon and 
other drivers?
Is there any status webpage available?

Kind regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Introducing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello jaromil,

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:01:41 +0200
jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote:

 this sounds like very good news! while i'm forwarding your heads-up to
 the developer community behind dyne:bolic, i can already anticipate
 we'd be happy to offer you hosting facilities, like bugtracker, git
 repository, mailinglist and visibility among our community, so that
 our efforts can benefit from each other.

That would be really good. As a small team we lack resources...

 what are you planning to base Connochaetos on? i can recommend LFS as
 being a very good start for a system crafted in good detail, but later
 on very difficult to port for PPC computers like old Macintosh
 hardware, a missed goal for dyne:bolic so far.

We will base ConnochaetOS on Arch GNU/Linux. It has a good packaging system 
(pacman) 
and package building with the Arch Building System is quite simple. It has some 
influence 
from BSD Ports (similar to Gentoo and Crux).

We will build everything new, since we want to support i586 (Arch is built for 
i686).
Additionally we will replace some components, because of footprint, stability 
or freedom.

Regards,

Henry

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Introducing ConnochaetOS

[Henry Jensen]

Hello Quiliro,

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:11:52 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even if you do your own separate project, Parabola is doing the same work as
 you 

Not exactly. They are doing a free Arch Linux with Linux-Libre, but they 
have the almost the same nearly bleeding-edge i686 optimized packages as Arch. 
This is from what I can tell by a look at their repos.

Our goal, however, is quite different. We want to support i586 and 
we want to have stable packages. 

But you are right in the sense, that we can share knowledge, perhaps in form of 
PKGBUILDs. We already did some work in this direction and would be happy to 
share it 
with the Parabola people.

Maybe it's my fault, but I wasn't able to find a link to their mailing list, 
forum or 
the like,  only the hint of an IRC channel - and I use IRC seldom. But maybe 
one of 
their maintainers is reading this list?


Kind regards,

Henry