Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Differences between Trisquel's kernel and linux-libre for i915 (video)

Hi there, it appears you've reached the wrong mailing list - this one isn't for the kernel. The correct one can be found at https://linux-libre.fsfla.org. However, it's probably not useful to start another one there. As a case in point, I've already sought information from yet another separate

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ION Project

On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 19:14:11 -0300 d1nc...@ion.lc wrote: > I would ask you to review the system or some > of it's components To be sure are you looking to have ION GNU/Linux added to gnu.org/distros? In that case on this list we evaluate the entire distro - not just pieces of it. Outside of

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > may we return to the original topic? > > ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap > > so far: > > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] programs which only use-case is non-free Was: Adding some scummvm

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:36:34 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > this is one of those FSDG grey-areas, for which it would be good to > have some consensus It sounds like what you're talking about his how to handle distro-specific packaging decisions. It's important to note that the FSDG doesn't seem to

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Adding some scummvm game(s) to the "List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines".

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:33:32 -0400 Richard Stallman wrote: > What does "CCS" mean here? It's supposed to be complete corresponding source code. pgpy489yOhpTN.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review of uruk

As I look through Uruk, the ISO files appears to be downloadable from SourceForge but I'm not finding the source code for those. Where is that located in order to generate them? I don't seem to find any information on urukproject.org or the SourceForge project. In addition, the IRC channel and

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Should the use of C#, Mono, and .NET still be discouraged?

To my understanding the patent situation hasn't changed. https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono Which is a little complicated that while it's useful to have free implementations of C#, we should arrange to depend on them as little as possible. pgppgN5SmZZao.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital

[GNU-linux-libre] GNU FSDG and SaaSS

The GNU FSDG doesn't seem to speak to SaaSS. It seems to me that it should. What's driving the question is that I learned of Parabola including a program called ydcv. It's used for translations (Chinese <-> English) through the Youdao online translate service [0]. This wouldn't stop people from

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] linux ppc micropatch.c: why keep it?

I have been unable to locate this engineering bulletin myself. I opened a support ticket with NXP asking for a copy. Just in case being able to see the actual engineering bulletin is helpful in some way. pgpwYuAlknGen.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Non-free fonts embedded in PDF files packaged by free GNU/Linux distributions endorsed by FSF

Thanks for noticing this. Another option is to replace the embedded font with one of the free ones like Liberation Serif, which is metrically equivalent to Times New Roman. All of the FSF-endorsed distro maintainers aren't on this list. To be sure it's captured as an actionable item, it would be

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

Ineiev wote: > I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved: > if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it > effectively directs its users to Slackware? Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > FSF has not told us the official FSF position concerning these > hypothetical scenarios

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 19:37 -0500, Luke wrote: > Additionally, the patches are expected to be ran against specific > Chromium releases. Future releases of Chromium are not > patched/audited > yet by the ungoogled-chromium project and may leak to Google. > See:

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [PATCH] gnu: Add ungoogled-chromium.

bill-auger wrote: > the most recent news regarding this (what appears to be the official > release notes) indicates that guix is no longer using the "ungoogled" > team as an upstream[1] I think that message "no longer using a fork of Ungoogled-Chromium" means the opposite: Whereas they'd

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:18 +0100, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > do you have the bug number now? 34565 https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34565 It seems to be disabled at build time only. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[GNU-linux-libre] Chromium, ungoogled or otherwise, and Guix

I decided to spend some time looking into Chromium, ungoogled-chromium, and Guix's methods, and the GNU FSDG. Even if vanilla Chromium does check out to be 100% free software it's already pretty easy to tell that it wouldn't be FSFG compliant, at least not out of the box. One is because of

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FSDG processes

Gábor Boskovits asked: > 1. If there is a free software, how do we ensure that it remains > free, or that it gets into the list of software with freedom issues? > Do we supervise each commit? My understanding is that each distro should be doing their own due diligence to only include

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: font issues.

On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 21:22 +0100, Diego Nicola Barbato wrote: > Is it enough to remove the non-free fonts in order to make Inferno > compatible with the FSDG, or are there further issues, namely that  > the fonts can not be rebuilt from source (i.e. there is no source) Under the FSDG fonts are

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1308285] add uruk gnu/linux to free list

There may be a misunderstanding then Thérèse; the GNU Webmastering Guidelines had never asked for the Webmasters themselves to write to the list. https://www.gnu.org/server/standards/#distros #3 has that the requestor (not the Webmasters) write to the list after the Webmasters have verified (in

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Amendment proposal for incoming distros page

In thinking on this, since I do this in my spare time and don't seem to work fast enough for André so as to get an entire distro reviewed in 4 days before it's called "stalled", I hereby resign as the Hyperbola application manager. Someone else can do it.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Amendment proposal for incoming distros page

This is something I do in my spare time. The usual review will take weeks. Sometimes months. (Remember the FSF said that PureOS took something like two years.) This is not some automated rote process. It takes a lot of thankless hard work and thought.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Amendment proposal for incoming distros page

André Silva wrote .. > Seems Hyperbola endorsement process (to be evaluated by community) > is stalled for now. I only volunteered to look over Hyperbola 4 days ago. It seems premature to say this. Plus, I hope others are willing to help too and not leaving it to a

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1291285] RE: FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

Jason Self <j...@jxself.org> wrote .. > Yes, exactly. I'll volunteer to do that. https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros has been updated to show Hyperbola in review.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1291285] RE: FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

> > only in this case he was interjecting immediately, vouching that in > > this case, the distro is already know to be a valid candidate and needs > > no further scrutiny at this level > > So now, Hyperbola needs wait for an individual volunteer on the list who > wants to take on the role of

[GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1291285] RE: FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

On Sat Apr 28 13:52:56 2018, emulator...@hyperbola.info wrote: > I've sent the above request/application to with > CC to the mailing lists . Should i send it to > again The GNU Webmasters just do a very basic check to

[GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1291285] RE: FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

> Hi, i'm André Silva, one of Hyperbola co-founders [0] and I would open a > new application for an initial review, required to start at the > beginning and run the new FSF endorsement process protocol for > Hyperbola.[1] > > Hyperbola is a Free Software and Free Culture project aiming to provide

[GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1291285] RE: FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

> Hi, i'm André Silva, one of Hyperbola co-founders [0] and I would open a > new application for an initial review, required to start at the > beginning and run the new FSF endorsement process protocol for > Hyperbola.[1] > > Hyperbola is a Free Software and Free Culture project aiming to provide

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

Isaac David wrote .. > right off the bat, Debian's Chromium steers users towards nonfree > addons, just like their version of Firefox... obviously unacceptable > to FSF standards. Yes, I know. This stems from a little bit of hand waving on my part. I tried to touch

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

Julie Marchant wondered about this. Past discussions of this are in the list archives and probably on the Linux-libre mailing list too. The general summary is that it's one thing when someone goes and does something on their own. It's another thing when their system tells them. And people

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

Henry Jensen wrote .. > 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.

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

> keep it updated in an automated way I'm not sure I'd be onboard with that idea. My understanding is that the Parabola folk will blacklist a package as soon as an allegation is made, as part of a "blacklist first, research second" type of policy. I don't mean to criticize the Parabola folk

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

bill-auger wrote .. > chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote: > > Recommended Fix: > Remove program/package > Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent Yes, although it's presence there is based on a report from 2009 that upstream has said (on more

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

Robert Call wrote .. > That is not part of the FSDG! Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later" as a fix. So even once Chromium is sorted out it'd still be on there but with a similar recommended fix. So it's not so much a blacklist anymore these days

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

> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request > complete removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways > of this because simply removing things means also we remove > productivity for many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that > is still not 100% stable

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

I don't understand the desire to boot distros off over how "maintained" they are. (Like how often releases happen, etc.) Both Blag and Ututo have been removed before. That can be seen in the log from the version control system [0]. One of the cited reasons, for Blag, was "it was last updated in

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Freeslack website

bill-auger wrote .. > which leads me back to my last question to this list from yesterday - > namely: "should a distro be grandfathered in all perpetuity once > endorsed with no further scrutiny of their on-going practices?" I don't think that this is intended. One

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

Jean Louis wrote .. > My suggestion is that FSF and volunteers skip the > common bureaucracy and skip to community review > manager right now to handle those distributions > that already applied. I had already looked at Hyperbola before the new process started. Finding no

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

Ivan Zaigralin wrote .. > Erm, you would want distro maintainers to re-do the paperwork > because FSF took a year evaluating a simple query? No I don't. Notice that the date of Don's message to them is April 6 2017. So, I meant a year after the FSF got back to them. But

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

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. (Based on Donald's 2017-04-06 email quoted

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

bill-auger wrote .. > some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification But hopefully not to the point of trying to document and cover all possible cases. This is probably not possible. Even if it were if evaluations were treated as a simple, automated, rote

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

Thanks for the work on this Donald! It would also be good if the existing resources could be updated to reflect this. For example, https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution- guidelines.html mentions "If you know about a free distribution that isn't listed there, please ask its

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Discussing the FSF endorsement process going forward

Jean Louis, the idea of having volunteers do the reviewing before the FSF gets involved helps spare their limited resources. Also, having more eyes looking into things is surely better than fewer ones (i.e., if it were only FSF staff.)

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

Therese Godefroy via RT wrote .. > I would be delighted to comment out Blag until it resurrects. The free distro page is supposed to be maintained by the FSF's Licensing and Compliance Lab, not the GNU Webmasters. Given that the GNU Webmasters aren't supposed to add

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

Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program, especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they might be handled.

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

> i must say though that it did not address what is the actual > behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable, I thought it did. > why is it not possible to simply change or suppress the error > message printed to the log or to later or periodically scrub the > logs of the

[GNU-linux-libre] PureOS non-free repo

Alexandre Oliva wrote .. > It certainly sounds odd. But, honestly, right now I'm more > concerned that updates for PureOS seem to have been published in a > non-free repo. Specifically, non-free microcode for CPUs affected > by Spectre. Surely we don't mean to endorse distros

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

bill-auger wrote .. > then the obvious question would be if the OP will see these replies if > they are not subscribed to this mailing list They wouldn't. I imagine that the webmasters will handle the replying of email that's sent to them? Maybe this was sent as food

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

bill-auger wrote .. > where is this ticket that you reference? gnu.org #1262331 - it is not > on the CC list - is that a on public tracker? It's a ticketing system used to handle certain email addresses like webmast...@gnu.org (and more), which seems to be where the

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

Therese Godefroy via RT wrote .. > Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be listed > in free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a major distro which > itself isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based on Fedora > 10 (2010).

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

It's probably best to run it by Alexandre Oliva. I imagine that there will still be challenges with this; he'd be the best person to explain them. It's not an easy problem to solve or it would have been by now.

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

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there is an idea for how to enable the loading of the proprietary firmware without also steering people to it when it's not present. A partial patch for it already exists in the linux-libre mailing list archives but it's a hard problem and hasn't been

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

Henry Jensen asked: > So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based > kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't? As Donald implied there is a lot of work involved in review a distros so I imagine that this was missed. A primary difference is a

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FSF endorsement request for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre

Hello, I wanted to check in and report that I've not yet found any problems to report. I'm wondering if anyone else is looking into Hyperbola and can share if they've identified anything?

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Using the Linux Liberation Scripts

Gpast_panama wrote .. > What modifications would typically be required to port it to an > alternative kernel tree, if the former? It depends on what has changed. As an example, if you were to look at what Trisquel does, they have modified the deblob scripts to catch

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Freedom issue, originally posted on Parabola bug tracker] Trademarked logos

8jxvrx+1bfu4ijuj3e68, trademarks aren't necessarily a problem. Yes, there is potential (add emphasis on that word there) for problems. I'll include by reference how Mozilla's trademark policy goes too far by including distribution restrictions going against freedom #2, but that is a specific

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser

Oh, and we also have similar efforts with things like GNU IceCat and Trisquel's Abrowser. It probably makes more sense to work together and not fragment efforts by starting yet another modified version of a Firefox-based browser.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser

It seems to have redistribution problems similar to Firefox, along with the misunderstanding that free software isn't about cost. It can be modified, and then a re-branded version could be distributed free of those problems, but this is also true of Firefox so I'm not sure what benefit there is

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen 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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Henry Jensen wrote .. > Yes, thank you for linking to the messages. RMS mentions a change > "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files" instead of failing. That was not the primary reason for linking to that message. Pay attention to his very first statement: > It

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

The FSF can, of course, set whatever criteria/conditions they want in order to put their name behind something. While I don't pretend to speak for the FSF the things I point out are things that, based on past experience, are problematic points to address if the end goal is indeed to get the FSF

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

Ah, I managed to find the ones I was thinking of: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00033.html http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00032.html

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

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 page, only Slackware. But even if we consider

[GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing ConnochaetOS

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ?= Usage of NINTENDO=?UTF-8?Q?®?=,=?UTF-8?Q? MAME® and other trademarks

Jean Louis said: > Considering all of the above, I propose that NINTENDO® trademark is > removed from ALL free software distribution as such. You started a similar thread about this on the Guix mailing list too. For example I think where, in Guix, the package for Mupen64Plus

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME

J.B. Nicholson wrote .. > Julian Marchant wrote: > > As far as I know, all Flash objects are non-libre. > > How do you figure this? I think they are referring to the ActionScript code [0] to construct the player (or whatever else.) It is usually not free which means that

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME

Jean Louis wrote .. > I have made mistake, I wanted to say: > > there is NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF FREE ROM that was made for > MAME that is on their website. Not outside of MAME website. But it shows that a given program can have multiple uses. Chris Webber has a

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

fr33domlover fr33domlo...@riseup.net asked: What if a distro is not self-hosting, but can be built from another fully free distro which is on the FSF's list of free distros? An exception to self-hosting is addressed in the GNU FSDG already. This was added for clarity due to LibreWRT, which

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

fr33domlover asked: a tiny distro for old hardware x86_64 machines, which are one of the stated targets, are not old. Imagine a 12-core Intel Xeon. I'd just like to understand why something with minimal benefit It's not clear to me why you're reluctant to provide easy access to a compiler

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RLSD GNU/Linux-libre 2.x

Ineiev wrote: I'm not sure the exception should apply to it. Yeah, the idea was that it was for embedded distros that target machines with insufficient storage, RAM CPU power to compile their own software themselves. The exception doesn't make much sense outside of the embedded world.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs

Michał Masłowski asked: Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful on servers? Riley Baird replied: Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for desktop users, but not for

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GNU/Linux-libre from source code for Loongson 3A (1.3)

Christophe Jarry said: In an attempt to build a simple GNU/Linux-libre distribution targetted at Loongson 3A machines, I wrote a document that describes how to build a basic GNU/Linux-libre operating system. You might be interested in collaborating with [0] who also target Loongson CPUs

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird said: is a restriction The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Framing copyleft as a restriction is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird said: For someone who hasn't decided whether they care about free software or open source (or both), it would help them to make their mind up without feeling that they are reading propaganda. Framing copyleft as a restriction is often propaganda used by the anti-copyleft crowd

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

Riley Baird asked: What part of their description is untrue? One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3 as a restriction. If you listen to Tom Preston-Werner's (GitHub co-founder) anti-GPL keynote from OSCON his position on the GPL will become clear and shouldn't be

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing the GNU system for FSDG compliance

Ludovic Courtès said: There are still important limitations [1] that make it unsuitable as a production system or for newcomers, but OK (and even pretty cool, I dare say ;-)) as a hacker’s system. So I wonder if now would be a good time to start reviewing it for FSDG compliance. WDYT? The

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] CAcert root certificate non-free?

Luke Shumaker: I'm with Parabola GNU/Linux-libre, and I have doubt that we can continue packaging the CAcert root certificate. It was pointed out that in 2010 Fedora Legal found[0] CAcert's Root Distribution License[1] to be non-free; with a usage restriction. How does this compare with the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] withdraw request for endorsement for GdNewHat.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: I would like to withdraw request for endorsement for GdNewHat because I decided to give help to restart BLAG distro and close GdNewHat project at the end of current release in order to shift development from binary base distro to source one. I would like to thank

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Is anyone interested in helping to further review GdNewHat? Please let me know and I can arrange for you to have access to my FOSSology instance.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: Hello, My name is Shintaro Shinozaki who is lead developer of GdNewHat project. We are currently maintaining GNU/Linux-libre system distribution and RPM repositories without non-free packages. So, we would like to join gnu-linux-libre community and request

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Riley Baird (Orthogonal) asked: What do we need to evaluate/discuss before it is accepted? I go use it, look it over, see what packages they have and if there is any low-hanging fruit like stuff mentioned in [0]. Grabbing the source code for packages and auditing them is also needed - looking

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] GdNewHat info and request for endorsement.

Shintaro Shinozaki said: I already sent email to webmast...@gnu.org. Webmaster gave me instructions to send email to gnu-linux-libre ML. Yes - My understanding is that the role of the GNU Webmasters is limited to briefly checking that the distro is a feasible candidate: they should have a clear

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: I’ve come up with a plan that will allow Guix to behave similarly [0]. Good good. :) I do have another question about how to apply the FSDG guidelines to Guix. Specifically in the Complete Distros section it mentions that if using it requires further work or presupposes

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: Yes, I understand this, but my question was more about how this occurs technically. My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they apply. Do I get it right? Ah, I see. In the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Ludovic Courtès said: I'm reluctant because of the technical and administrative burden it entails I suppose another option is to leave out problematic packages entirely. Otherwise, welcome to the world of being an FSF-endorsed distro. :) Besides, our package meta-data would probably still

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Recognizing the GNU system as a free distro

Sam Geeraerts said: Note that some packages may contain non-free files (e.g. [a]), regardless of the license of the whole. There are also freedom issues that are unrelated to the license of the code, e.g. encouraging the use of non-free software [b]. I see that your packaging guidelines

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Gnuplot

Alexandru Cojocaru xo...@gmx.com wrote .. Is Gnuplot really Free Software? Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to distribute the complete modified source code. Modifications are to be distributed as patches to the released version. I seem to recall that other

[GNU-linux-libre] Working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment

In case anyone hadn't seen this. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibreWRT free distro?

Ineiev asked: Is it self-hosting? I'm not sure that the self-hosting requirement makes sense in this case because emedded devices typically do not have the resources to compile their own software. It's usually done on a more capable system and then copied to the device afterward. In the case of

[GNU-linux-libre] Linux GPLv3

There was a recent discussion about the Linux kernel and GPLv3 on a mailing list and it made me wonder how much stuff is licensed under v2 only terms. So I fed Linux-libre 3.1.4 to FOSSology so I can look for things that would get in the way of moving to v3. Not that Linus ever would, but

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] virtual private servers that can run a free distribution

Sam Geeraerts wrote .. Is corehost.us not included because of false modisty or does it really not qualify? I was never clear why corehost.us didn't offer things like Trisquel, etc. as part of their virtual and dedicated server options. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Nicolás Reynolds fa...@kiwwwi.com.ar wrote .. Hi, the update from thunderbird 3 to 7 is late at Parabola because we can't find a way to modify the extension URL[1] to not show the default recommended addons page. If you know how to do it please do, otherwise you can vote up this question[0]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Thunderbird 6.0+ doesn't allow extension URL modification

Quiliro Ordóñez wrote .. I cannot find that folder or the file you mention. I was working from the Thunderbird 7.0.1 source code: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/7.0.1/source/thunderbird-7.0.1.source.tar.bz2 signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[GNU-linux-libre] unzip

While examining the unzip source code I found this clause in the file match.c: Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, or redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are included unmodified, that it is not sold for profit, and that this copy-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] TeXLive auditing

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ...it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

What? Is is absolutely source code. In a way, they are forks from upstream. They address the problematic areas of the upstream software that concern the free software community that upstream doesn't want to address. GNU Icecat, for example, can be used without ever thinking about Mozilla's

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: I can contribute with some of the loongson port, and I guess the default tty and several DEs can be there too :) Great -- the more the merrier, in my opinion :) -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key: 47486962 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Screenshots Of Free Distros In Action

, please. :) -- Jason Self GNU Chief Webmaster GPG Key: 47486962 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

Sam Geeraerts wrote: In gNewSense we rebrand at least the highly visible things in the standard desktop install, e.g. GRUB, usplash, GDM, Gnome, package manager. I think it's enough to fulfill FSDG. Karl Berry wrote: I agree. Parabola people, can you follow that lead, please? Nicolás

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] chromium not free?

Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote .. Nevertheless, it says all rights reserved. Doesn't that mean that all other right not specifically mentioned are reserved? Yes, but it's not due to that satement. With today's copyright law, All Rights Reserved is the default state of things --

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] chromium not free?

Quiliro Ordóñez quil...@congresolibre.org wrote .. Does this mean you cannot have the freedom to modify this information file? It doesn't specifically say that, no... only that you may recompile and redistribute. Nothing more. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibreWRT : A 100% FOSS GNU/Linux-libre Distro

Jaromil wrote: Jason: is openfwwf already in LibreWRT? it seems that openfwwf supports the Asus WL500g series. Not currently, but it could be added. We're getting ready to do a new release on March 19th at the upcoming LibrePlanet 2011 [1]. It's too late for that, I think, but perhaps for our

  1   2   >