I haven't been following this thread super-close, so sorry if I missed
someone already throwing this out there.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Thanks, this had not been mentioned yet, and I missed the addition of
these guidelines. The guidelines are very
Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
>> the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
>> infrastructure to handle the machines.
>>
> I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain
>
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It most certainly is not. I can attest to that personally, having been
>> involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years. It is
>> an expectation for all GNU projects.
> Expectation and advice, but no
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...] the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
> >> any non-free software from their sites, [...]
> > That rule is a myth.
>
> It most certainly is not. I can attest
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to
>> follow something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to
>> any non-free software from their sites, [...]
>
> That rule is a myth
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow
> something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free
> software from their sites, [...]
That rule is a myth. Their campaign sites like
http://badvista
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>
>> > Translated to the current way things are done, this means that
>> according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the
>> existence of the > non-free component in a way that s
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>
>> > Translated to the current way things are done, this means that
>> according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the
>> existence of the > non-free component in a way that suggests getting
>> non-free software from > there.
>> >
>> > I'm very cur
> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according
> to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the
> non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from
> there.
>
> I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian wo
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing
the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough
infrastructure to handle the machines.
I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the
domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallm
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the
>> existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free
>> software from there.
>>
>> I tried for years to convince Debian
My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow
something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free
software from their sites, which would mean that we couldn't even tell our
users that non-free existed in standard documentation.
I initially tho
Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according
> to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the
> non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from
> there.
My understanding of
13 matches
Mail list logo
