Re: [GNU-linux-libre] emulators and other hosts of foreign applications

I accidentally replied to RMS only, so this is a slightly edited version of my original post. On 7/12/23 19:03, Richard Stallman wrote: >> Moreover, I would suggest that FSF should not be in the business of >> advising people at large not to use nonfree software, and to my very >> limited under

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] emulators and other hosts of foreign applications

On 7/8/23 19:53, Richard Stallman wrote: > this part just went full-circle back to a few weeks ago > "emulators and other hosts of foreign applications" > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-06/msg00088.html You're focusing on abstract classifications of programs,

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is this work-group still serving the community?

On 10/31/21 18:03, bill-auger wrote: rather than each distro repeating the same auditing work and deciding for itself what "libre" means; it would be more efficient if a collaborative team audited contentious software for all distros, and presented the results to the FSF for the final decision,

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1712352] freenix endorsed ?

g some Slavic languages too. Am I right? > > * Ivan Zaigralin [2021-04-07 02:54]: >> Dear Jean Louis, >> >> We have been waiting for FSF to do something, anything, for years now. >> If you want to "rush", please let them know. > Tell me to which person

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1712352] freenix endorsed ?

Dear Jean Louis, We have been waiting for FSF to do something, anything, for years now. If you want to "rush", please let them know. To answer your questions, every single bit of info you want is already provided on our very small wiki. See inline replies below. > What I don't understand is the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1132171] [distro review] Freenix: In search of FSF certification

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 17:41:10 Donald R Robertson III via RT wrote: > On Tue Aug 13 17:15:42 2019, melik...@melikamp.com wrote: > > Internally, we've reached similar conclusions, and going forward, we > > will > > simply duplicate relevant pieces of documentation whenever we want to > > publ

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1132171] [distro review] Freenix: In search of FSF certification

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 17:41:10 Donald R Robertson III via RT wrote: > Great, I'm glad that wasn't too burdensome in the end. I took another pass > and things are mostly looking good but just a few quick fixes. > > * On and This is

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

9 5:17 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > What you are saying below was also my understanding, Bill, up to very > > recently, because this email from Childebert , > > who > > inquired about our status from FSF just a few days ago, seems to offer a > > > contra

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

I really don't think we should discuss any more hypothetical scenarios in this thread. I would agree with you that Freenix forum is a more appropriate place to discuss how we present documentation and how that affects our users' freedom. The real question here is, the way I see it: why does ht

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

> From: Childebert > To: Ivan Zaigralin > CC: Matt Samudio > > Le Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:21:01 -0700, > Ivan Zaigralin a écrit : > > I received the message from the FSF he say this :"With Freenix, a year > ago an issue was raised on gnu-linux-libre@ that r

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

On Friday, June 21, 2019 18:46:17 Ineiev wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:00:32PM -0400, bill-auger wrote: > > i dont remember exactly, but it appears to be in response to > > someones concern that the freenix documentation is incomplete, > > which is not a problem on its own; but that, more imp

[GNU-linux-libre] Fwd: reply FSF

debert To: Ivan Zaigralin CC: Matt Samudio Le Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:21:01 -0700, Ivan Zaigralin a écrit : I received the message from the FSF he say this :"With Freenix, a year ago an issue was raised on gnu-linux-libre@ that remained unresolved there, https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack -> Freenix transition is done, awaiting review

Bah, links got mangled somehow. Our wiki, which is the main source of documentation: https://freenix.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start And our forum: https://freenix.net/forum/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack -> Freenix transition is done, awaiting review

Hi everyone! We publicized the distribution/project name change from FreeSlack to Freenix, and our websites are all Freenixy now. Some notes to reviewers: Things like names of files are left alone for the current stable (14.2) but will be thoroughly rebranded wherever appropriate in the next s

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website

I > am posing genuine questions and thoughts that come to mind. I am not > trying to ruffle any feathers or step on any toes. With that in mind... > > On 03/23/2018 11:51 AM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > I'd like to register my dislike of the subjective approach to the n

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website

P.S. To clarify my personal & institutional bias, here at FreeSlack the consensus for the distro name is "Freenix" at the moment, so I don't have an ulterior motive in making these suggestions. On Friday, March 23, 2018 10:51:01 Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > I'd like to

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website

I'd like to register my dislike of the subjective approach to the name similarity issue as well. Not that it doesn't work. I think it works OK, because this is not a particularly big deal to begin with. FreeSlack project, for example, has always been flexible in that respect, as in, fully coope

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website

> > 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: > > > > https://www.freeslack.net/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=7&goto=15&#msg_15 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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

I agree: if a distro can't fix a freedom bug for an extended period of time, we should assume utter incompetence or bad faith, and there should be a path to revoke/reset the certification. To keep things fair, some of that policy should be written down. At the same time, not all freedom bugs are

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

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 19:47:37 Jason Self wrote: > bill-auger wrote .. > > > BTW - the actual OP for free-slack is here: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-07/msg00021.html > > OK so freeslack can probably be updated that it's on hold pending a > name change. (Ba

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

A pretty good and very current summary of FreeSlack review process can be found here: https://www.freeslack.net/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=7&goto=15&#msg_15 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

To clarify, I agree with you and Luke down below that www subdomain is nice and useful. It's only the tacit assumption that www.whatever.com = whatever.com that I find annoying :) On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 21:38:29 bill-auger wrote: > 'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "trad

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

This is my understanding as well. In a way, www subdomain is a total nuisance. It is entirely traditional, but now every web user expects a redirect, consciously or not, so that they can use example.com in lieu of www.example.com, and still end up in the same place. But this doesn't "just happe

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] add uruk gnu/linux

I think this is a very good idea. I have to confess, we are not feeling very confident while FreeSlack is stalling in the review queue. In our case, we've been informed that "FreeSlack" is afoul of FSDG because it's too similar to "Slackware". We pitched "Freenix" and "FXP" as replacement distr

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

I really like all of these suggestions, and with respect to the security standard to meet, I feel that maintainers should do at least so much: publish (prominently!) the list of known and reported vulnerabilities which won't be fixed, and the reasons for not fixing them. If they can make a techn

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

On Monday, August 07, 2017 00:10:39 Henry Jensen wrote: > Am Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:27:01 -0700 (PDT) > > But if your decision is to continue to push back on this and leave the > > request_firmware calls in place and unmodified, then I think my review > > of ConnochaetOS is over. > > That is, of cour

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

On Sunday, August 06, 2017 09:37:16 Jason Self wrote: > Henry Jensen wrote .. > > > 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. > > There is no reference to FreeSlack on that p

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] youtube-dl might be running non-free software from

Sorry, I meant to say I do NOT speak for FSF in this post :) On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 16:43:46 you wrote: > I do speak for FSF here, though I am a member. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] youtube-dl might be running non-free software from

I do speak for FSF here, though I am a member. On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:06:18 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > 1. Considering the current GNU FSDG: What free/libre system distributions >should do when they face the JavaScript trap in case some of the >packages they have depend on non-fr

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] youtube-dl might be running non-free software from webpages

It is not the primary function of youtube-dl to run specific non-free code off the web. The primary function of youtube-dl is to download videos onto the local host. It may well be that in order to acheve this goal youtube-dl downloads and executes mystery javascript, possibly non-free. Compare

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Fully FOSS Tails OS

Tails are not receptive to the idea, at least there's no reason to think they changed their minds. About a year ago I've made an effort to figure out how they estimate the chances of distributing malware within Linux blobs, and they stonewalled me completely. By that they've shown their deep ign

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Free firmware - A redefinition of the term and a new metric for it's measurement.

I think FSF has struck gold with its firmware stance, basically treating it as all other software, which it is. So the question of what constitutes libre firmware is not controversial: can we read & understand the source? can we modify, rebuild, and redeploy at will? can we distribute modificat

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 23:01:46 Zlatan Todoric wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/10/2016 09:46 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > Your summary of this thread could hardly be less correct. We already > > identified at least one problem with the OS itself: the presence of the > &g

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:13:56 Jaromil wrote: > Now to respond to a recently raised concern about Trisquel's list of > supported hardware, I believe this is different from offering a > *medium of distribution*. While Trisquel uses ISO files and CD/DVD > supports as mediums of distribution,

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Perfectionism

Your summary of this thread could hardly be less correct. We already identified at least one problem with the OS itself: the presence of the stock firefox. No one is upset at Purism for putting PureOS on their hardware, but we suggested a clear separation between the two fronts. As John Sullivan

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 17:26:26 Francois Téchené wrote: > That being said about the computers we sell, please let us know the > exact steps we need to achieve to get endorsed? > > From my understanding here are the steps : > > - Disable the ability to use extensions in our version of Fire

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:01:51 -0800 > > > > Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > > non-free hard/software > > > > What, so now the FSDG don't allow you to recommend non-free hardware? > > > > > The FSDG could not be clearer on this point: it will not

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Wednesday, November 09, 2016 14:19:21 Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 08:51:14 Riley Baird wrote: > > Should Trisquel be able to create a list of computers with compatible > > hardware? > > This is a good question, and may be someone here can provi

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Wednesday, November 09, 2016 14:19:21 Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > If ... recommending a > system with nonfree BIOS is OK (as long as it runs a free OS), then I think > there shouldn't be any problem with Purism laptops either, no? I understand > they do not require any nonfree sof

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 08:51:14 Riley Baird wrote: > Should Trisquel be able to create a list of computers with compatible > hardware? This is a good question, and may be someone here can provide an answer? To be sure, I am a bit confused about Trisquel's endorsement of, say, ThinkPenguin

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

:14 Riley Baird wrote: > On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:01:51 -0800 > > Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > non-free hard/software > > What, so now the FSDG don't allow you to recommend non-free hardware? > > > The FSDG could not be clearer on this point: it will not approve > &

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

are coming along... I really want to start experimenting with providing light-weight, and especially javascript-free options. On Wednesday, November 09, 2016 20:26:02 Jean Louis wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:01:51AM -0800, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > you distribute a browser which sug

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

> I will stop responding to mails trying to attach our OS with our > hardware. This is for FSF Free distro endorsement, and the other is for > RYF hardware - stop combining the two things. Though an FSF member, I am not a part of the team that makes the determination for FSDG compliance, so my co

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

Sounds good, we'll purge > font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz > font-bh-type1-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz Sneaky... On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:07:33 Henry Jensen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:58:01AM +0200, Henry Jensen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Aug 08

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

wrote: > 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 packa

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

Thanks! I can confirm the fonts. And actually, other Luxi fonts share the same license, so they are all as good as gone. 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. On Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:2

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

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

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

Hey everyone :) 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,

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1089240] In search of FSF certification

tps://projects.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/icedove > https://projects.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/nonprism/icedove > > We remove DRM, Branding, and anti-privacy "features" as well. So if your > looking for ideas, feel free to borrow from it! It'll save you some ti

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1089240] In search of FSF certification

Sounds great. What I think we will do is we will purge offending mozilla products and possibly provide replacements. It will be done during June. Then we'll give a shout-out for the final check both to you and the linux-libre group. Now, I have a somewhat technical question. As for firefox, there

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

hem. There will never again be a non-free software ecosystem there, but thanks to MAME a free software ecosystem may yet develop. On 04/01/2016 01:17 PM, Leo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ivan Zaigralin <mailto:melik...@melikamp.com>> wrote: > > The point of emula

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

The point of emulators like this one is to preserve software history. Yes, it emulates non-free software. No, it's no longer relevant. I mean, it's no longer relevant as software, but only as the historical record of what entertainment software was like in the times of yore. New nonfree games are b

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

Thanks, stressware! This is indeed our take on it. While this is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, here's a fun piece of trivia: Slack actually refers back to the gift of "Bob", not Slackware :) At any rate, we have a feeling these names are just different enough: they make very differen

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

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