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

On 1/11/2021 05:46, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: Though I really like the idea of sharing the work between the distributions. The question would also be how to share it practically speaking. Back when (2012) I was pretty active on the non-FSDG wiki page I asked myself that same question and

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

Op Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:51:26 -0400 schreef Donald Robertson : > I'd like to also encourage people here on the list to help out with > the Directory. A lot of the same issues we discuss here are relevant > when looking to add things to the Directory as well. I feel like there's an

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

Op Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:38:09 -0500 schreef bill-auger : > unless it can be shown that it was absolutely necessary to create > pureos rather than re-vitalize gnewsense, then it's existence can > only be seen as a publicity stunt to the detriment of gnewsense >

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

Op Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:15:25 +0200 schreef Zlatan Todoric : > > If you type "man sources.list", you will find an example of a deb > > line which includes Debian's contrib and non-free repositories. > > I see how this could be seen problematic, but it can escalate to >

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] programming language package manager

Op Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:03:49 -0400 schreef Richard Stallman : > * Make free replacement repositories, and modify our versions > of those packages to use the free ones. We would fill > free replacement repositories with the free packages from > the existing repositories. This

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] programming language package manager

Op Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:34:35 -0700 schreef Ali Abdul Ghani : > There are 2 solutions came in my head > 1- remove this Package Manager from this programming languages from > free gnu/linux distributions > > in fact If we're removing those package managers, it's going to

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Nonfree jpegxr in ghostscript

Op Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:47:24 +0200 schreef m...@mtjm.eu (Michał Masłowski): Hello. A user found a nonfree library source being bundled with Ghostscript. (snip) Debian removes that library, so it should be already fixed in derived distros. Should we update the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] (no subject)

Op Sat, 02 Aug 2014 10:33:33 +0200 schreef m...@mtjm.eu (Michał Masłowski): * In libical-1.0.tar.xz in the directory src/Net-ICal-Libical/netical_wrap.c it says Permission is granted to distribute this file in any manner provided this notice remains intact. There might be other non-free

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

Op Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:01:13 +0200 schreef l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès): 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? For gNewSense we do as follows. If the software

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - kde4libs: kate/syntax/data/lpc.xml; no license: javascript.xml, nemerle.xml, verilog.xml, eiffel.xml, python.xml, component-pascal.xml, literate-haskell.xml, sieve.xml, sql-mysql.xml, pike.xml, sql

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - maradns: debian/resolvconf-script - mpc: debian/examples/playstream - rest2web: debian/* Martin F. Krafft clarified his license notices regarding the AL to me: You may assume that whenever I left out

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - deborphan: all (except util/orphaner.sh = GPL|Artistic) Deborphan falls under the MIT license since version 1.7.29: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/deborphan/trunk/debian/changelog?revision=827view=markup

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - txt2html: all, except debian/* The README file says it's licensed the same as Perl, so GPL also applies. - xtv: all This falls under GPL according to http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/X11/xutils/xtv.lsm

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] snprintf license

. It would be nice to see that also in the header of the source code files and in the README. Putting a copy of both license texts in the archive would round it off perfectly. Kind regards, Sam Geeraerts

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:51:15 GMT schreef k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry): Several files in extsizes are under the LPPL: extarticle.cls, extreport.cls, size{14,17,20,8,9}.clo. Seems good enough to me (speaking as the maintainer of TeX Live). Of course, if you (or anyone) wants to contact

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - bubbros: bubbob/levels/*,bubbob/music/*,bubbob/sounds/* (also bubbob/levels/*bin = binary only) Levels, music and sounds are not a problem, because they fall under (a reworded form of) the Clarified Artistic

[GNU-linux-libre] snprintf license

://www.ijs.si/software/snprintf/ Kind regards, Sam Geeraerts

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Artistic License

Op Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:39:51 +0200 schreef Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be: - texlive-base: debian/copyright lists some license problems Investigated more closely. These are no problem: - euler: LPPL according to source/latex/euler/legal.txt - adrconv: LPPL according to texmf-dist

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] RFCs and FSDG

Op Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:45:12 GMT schreef k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry): To my knowledge, it has always been the analysis that RFC's and similar (C standards, POSIX standards, W3C standards, just about any kind of official standard) are not ok for free distros. Because they are information

[GNU-linux-libre] Recent changes to non-FSDG list

I've been skimming through changes in the non-FSDG list [1] in recent months. First of all a big thanks to Grant H. for filling in the blanks and cleaning it up. I have some comments to straighten out some details. The Thunderbird entry got an additional problem: non-free search plugins. It

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

Jason Self wrote: In case anyone hadn't seen this. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html Thanks for letting us know.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Fwd: Proposal for a new software in the list of software that doesn't respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines

Aurelien Riviere wrote: My post is about MultiSystem, a software that propose to make USB Multiboot. Which distributions include it as a package?

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

Karl Goetz wrote: I've not looked at LibreWRT myself, but I'd trust Jason to be doing due diligence (to the extent that is possible). He has been responsible for finding a lot of the issues currently listed on our NONFSDG page :) + 1

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software

Karl Goetz wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:51:11 +0100 Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote: The copyright file in the Debian package as this statement from the author: Thank you for your work on BEAV. I do intend to use the GNU copyright in the future. You can put the current BEAV

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software

Karl Goetz wrote: BEAV Has A Non-Commercial Clause https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?34591 - I've blacklisted this in gNS The copyright file in the Debian package as this statement from the author: Thank you for your work on BEAV. I do intend to use the GNU copyright in the future.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potential issue with packages embedding waf

Karl Goetz wrote: Ian seems to disagree this is source, and i tend to agree with him [1]. Its not the preferred form of modification as its built from the git repo and has all comments (and other?) stripped. You're right. I did a quick search in the samba 3.5.6 package, but couldn't find

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software

Karl Goetz wrote: bacula has a freedom problem https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34578 - could i get some input on this bug please? Does anyone else agree with jasons interpretation of the licence? if its generally agreed to be a problem i'll report a bug in debian. This appears to be the

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

Ward Vandewege wrote: The idea is to compile a list of providers, identifying those where one can run a free distribution and how easy it is to do so. Is corehost.us not included because of false modisty or does it really not qualify?

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

The explanation about booting with a floppy [1] recommends the Plop boot manager, which is non-free. Excerpt from the License section on its website: The programs are NOT free to use for commercial use.. [1] http://www.connochaetos.org/wiki/other_methods_of_installation

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

Henry Jensen wrote: So, now you are saying that FSF and FSFE are have different positions on this matter. I think both FSF and FSFE are of the opinion that free software and open source mean different (though not hugely different) things for people who know what they're talking about, but

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

Henry Jensen wrote: On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:00:22 +0200 Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote: In any case, it's clear that using the term free software over open source should be encouraged within FSDG distro communities. I think it's not necessary to make an FSDG rule

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

Jason Self wrote: Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote .. I think so. If you put Firefox with branding on a Trisquel CD then you (or anyone else) can't sell that CD, as I understand it. Not being able to charge money for unmodified binaries does seem to conflict with that with what

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

the software license it ships under? You mean the copyright license? AFAIK it doesn't, because they are separate things. * Do you know of any other trademark license that restricts distribution or usability? I only know of licenses that require renaming modified versions. Sam Geeraerts

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Liferea recommends unfree browsers (patch)

-browsers.dpatch by Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be ## ## DP: Remove non-free browsers from preferences. @DPATCH@ diff -urNad liferea-1.4.14~/liferea.schemas liferea-1.4.14/liferea.schemas --- liferea-1.4.14~/liferea.schemas 2007-07-23 19:56:59.0 +0200 +++ liferea-1.4.14/liferea.schemas

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

of non-FSDG software over fully free alternatives. Sam Geeraerts gNewSense dev P.S.: I'm not involved in the Trisquel community and I don't mean to overstep my boundaries. I just think it's an interesting case to comment on and clarify with regards to the free distro checklist.

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

Henry Jensen wrote: 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

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

Henry Jensen wrote: 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? I think general forum good practices apply: - Make sure you have clear rules about what is allowed, not just with regards to software

[GNU-linux-libre] NONFSDG: Konqueror

Konqueror recommends non-free software (e.g. Flash, Realplayer) in it's startup pages (Specifications). See https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?33694 . --- Sam Geeraerts gNewSense dev

[GNU-linux-libre] More non-free packages

://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?33558 [5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?33559 [6] https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?33560 --- Sam Geeraerts gNewSense dev

[GNU-linux-libre] Nyquist is non-free

The package nyquist has the same problem as Audacity, because it uses the same xlbfun.c file. Our bug report: https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?33646 --- Sam Geeraerts gNewSense dev

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] dyne:bolic 3.0 beta1 - comments welcome!

Jose E. Marchesi wrote: Our script [1] for the Debian based gNewSense version may be of interest. It comes down to creating a full mirror and then deleting all blacklisted packages. Would be very good to summarize all the existing solutions for scanning non-free software, and then

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] dyne:bolic 3.0 beta1 - comments welcome!

Jaromil wrote: hi Rubén, On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Rubén Rodríguez wrote: would be nice to have a script that checks presence of packages, i'll produce this as development progresses Our script [1] for the Debian based gNewSense version may be of interest. It comes down to creating a full mirror

[GNU-linux-libre] NONFSDG: Audacity, Free Abuse extensions

Two more entries for the NONFSDG list, with thanks to Jason Self. * Audacity: one file in the Nyquist plugin has a non-commercial clause [1]. * Free Abuse extensions: the Claudio add-ons don't allow distribution and only non-commercial use [2]. I'll add them to the list if there are no

[GNU-linux-libre] [Fwd: [bug #33416] a2ps.pl has a non-commercial clause]

: Sam Geeraerts invalid.nore...@gnu.org To: Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be, Karl Goetz k...@kgoetz.id.au URL: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?33416 Summary: a2ps.pl has a non-commercial clause Project: gNewSense GNU/Linux Submitted by: samgee

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ufoai has noncommercial requirements

Leo wrote: I believe that ufoai is in contrib in Debian. It didn't make it into Debian [1]. Arch wrongly marks ufoai-data as GPL (in Parabola it's getting blacklisted right now). If it could be included in the blacklist in Libre Planet that would be good. Fine by me. I happily leave the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME license non-free

Rubén Rodríguez wrote: I thought MAME was an old-timer in Debian non-free (making it at least suspicious), but apparently it only just got added. It just entered Ubuntu universe with maverick, replacing sdlmame (which was in multiverse). Maybe they are relaxing their policies a bit more.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME license non-free

Rubén Rodríguez wrote: The license for the MAME package restricts commercial distribution: Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity. I'm adding it to the blacklist. I thought MAME was an old-timer in Debian non-free (making it at least

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

Daniel Olivera wrote: Saludos a todos esta lista me canso. Una mas This list is meant for cooperation between distributions around the world. I think the best way to make that work is to keep discussion in English.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Current version of poppler-data is BSD

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: It seems that poppler-data has changed license since 2009 [0] I've checked the headers of all files on poppler-data[1] and they are distributed under the modified BSD license as advertised by the COPYING.adobe file. Great news. I think it can be removed from the

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] nltk-data

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: Hi, this package, nltk-data, got caught on our filters due to a license that says: Parts of NTLK-Data are distributed under various licenses, as documented in their respective README files. See: /usr/share/nltk/data/corpora/ -- [0] so we went checking those

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

Simon Josefsson wrote: Jason Self jason-lrf9tu4k2ftk1umjsbk...@public.gmane.org writes: [3] http://aws.bluehome.net/squeeze_kernel_diff.txt The code below looks interesting. Should we report this as a Debian kernel bug? diff -r

[GNU-linux-libre] FOSDEM

Is anyone going to FOSDEM? There's going to be a distribution miniconference and they're desperately looking for more talks [1]. I'm probably going, but I'm not really one for speaking. It would be nice to see some free distros represented there. [1]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Emulators

Matt Lee wrote: On 12/14/10 16:08, Sam Geeraerts wrote: I see. That seems to mostly involve either hex editing or disassembling. In any case, I haven't heard of ROMs with a free license. Look into how Debian distributes games like Flight of the Amazon Queen -- they're ScummVM games, being

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Emulators

Matt Lee wrote: On 12/13/10 16:45, Sam Geeraerts wrote: Some people consider game ROMs to be artwork, but they must contain some logic too. They're unmodifiable and sourceless in any case, so I think we shouldn't provide software who's only purpose is to run those ROMs. Thoughts? I don't

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Emulators

Graziano wrote: I don't know if there are free software ROMs out there but I never heard of them. Apparently there are resources ([1], [2]) available to learn how to write your own game. I don't know of any free ROMs either, though. The point is I always heard rms talking about banning a

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] default search engines

Christophe Jarry wrote: There is also the Seeks project (P2P search engine): http://www.seeks-project.info. It seems to rely on user input instead of crawling. Are there enough people out there who think hacking on search results is fun to get a useful index? I fear not, but I'd be pleased

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] firefox and thunderbird HOWTO request

Joshua Ismael wrote: Hi there. Both thunderbird and firefox have branding issues and recommend non free plugins, so free distros can't provide them but have compile another package based upon it. For parabola we were providing icecat, but the delay between firefox releases and icecat's causes

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] firefox and thunderbird HOWTO request

Nicolás Reynolds wrote: El 11/11/10 08:37, Karl Goetz dijo: Probably not the right place to ask, but if icecat has a sort of linux-libre script we would be glad to use it. GNUzilla website [1] has instructions to get the code (not the ful source, but patches to Mozilla afaik) from Subversion.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] NONFSDG: Audacious plugins, Xchat

Karl Goetz wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:39:01 +0200 jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote: hi Karl, On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:10:44 +0200 jaromil jaro...@dyne.org wrote: one solution i see is just provide a .patch for the upstream code and leave distro developers and mantainers apply it every time

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

Alexandre Oliva wrote: Nouveau is getting there. I see that deblob-2.6.35 cleans nouveau_grctx.c. That file is not in Linux 2.6.36, so it looks like we'll have a fully free Nvidia driver shortly in an upstream release.

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

Sam Geeraerts wrote: I also noticed that Thunderbird [2] and OpenOffice.org [3],[4], so I'll add those if there are no objections. Done.

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

Henry Jensen schreef: 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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] cracklib2

Grant Houlgate schreef: I was surfing libreplanet and came across this (http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines). It says cracklib 2 has been GPL'd since 2005 and it is a dependency for one of my favorite free programs (revelation

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: 100% Free Software T-shirt design

Alexandre Oliva schreef: Let us know which designs you like best, keeping in mind that we're aiming at a monochrome solid-color front-only design, to be printed in black on light-colored T-shirts. Suggestions of colors are welcome. My top 4: 1. hound2 2. hound4 (works without the logo

[GNU-linux-libre] Re: 100% Free Software T-shirt design

Matias A. Fonzo schreef: I'm not convinced that putting the distro names on there is a good idea, though. When I buy a T-shirt I like it to last me a couple of years. I would feel a bit stupid walking around in a T-shirt listing distros that don't exist anymore or not naming distros that should

[GNU-linux-libre] Re: 100% Free Software T-shirt design

Alexandre Oliva schreef: On Jun 6, 2010, crap0101 marco.chieppa-c...@poste.it wrote: I'm thinking about the result of draw '100% libre' (or most of it) only using the distros' names and using an optional tin and discontinued outline when needed That was actually the first thing we tried. I

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] OpenOffice.org extensions

John Sullivan schreef: Hi Sam, Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be writes: Hi, The FSF has announced that they'll be making a list of free software only extensions for OpenOffice.org [1]. This means that our version(s) of it should point to that location by default (from Tools - Extension

[GNU-linux-libre] OpenOffice.org extensions

? The FSF asks to email the Community Council. I'm going to do that today and I'm going to include a request for a patch, but I doubt that we'll get anything from that. [1] http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-launches-free-software-extension-listing-for-openoffice.org Regards, Sam Geeraerts

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] ee 1.4.2 - artistic license 1.0

Rubén Rodríguez Pérez schreef: Marcooliva just sent the message below to the Trisquel bugtracker.The ee package uses the artistic license 1.0 so we removed it. It comes from the Ubuntu hardy repositories. I'll add it to the libreplanet wiki list. I noticed on the upstream website that there's

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibrePlanet: talking about free distros?

Karl Goetz schreef: On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:09:27 -0500 Brett Smith br...@fsf.org wrote: Hi folks, Who's planning on coming to LibrePlanet? (http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page) Abdur-Rahman of BLAG suggested a conference for free distributions, to talk about issues of common concern and how

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: teeworlds not free software

Karl Berry schreef: Hi Karl, be worked around it 'with a simple hello world'. I find it kinda silly, The non-silliness comes in when you see how font knockoff sites operate: they copy font x from somewhere and throw it into their production process to sell it (under their own proprietary

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Re: teeworlds not free software

Karl Goetz schreef: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:20:21 GMT k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) wrote: 4. Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original or modified versions, may be sold by itself. As far as I know this does not automatically make the software nonfree.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Status of google chrome and chromium

Karl Goetz schreef: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/bsdiff/current/copyright Lists the licence as 'bsd'. This may need a bug report. It's a bit confusing. The package in Chromium is the Python version of that: python-bsdiff.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Status of google chrome and chromium

A.J. Venter schreef: * The Google Chrome EULA makes reference to various features that would be odious to free software users: the browser automatically updates itself without warning the user or allowing them to intervene. It also automatically downloads a blacklist of extensions from Google;

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] gnome-app-install

Karl Goetz schreef: together a new version of app-install-data for the various distributions would probably be some nice low-hanging fruit interested contributors could work on. gNewSense removes app-install-data-commercial, but leaves {gnome-}app-install in place (After disabling

[GNU-linux-libre] Re: [Gnewsense-dev] libXprintAppUtil 1.0.1 - Bugs

Marco Oliva schreef: The program libxprintapputil version 1.0.1 has, in my opinion, some critical bugs: 1º - In the COPYING file there is no license. 2º - In the files libXprintAppUtil-1.0.1/src/xpapputil.c and libXprintAppUtil-1.0.1/include/X11/XprintAppUtil/xpapputil.h are written:

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Spicebird/Thunderbird - fully free enough ?

A.J. Venter schreef: So - has there been any work done to try and provide a trademark-safe version of thunderbird that doesn't recomend non-free extensions/themes ? Like we have firefox in IceCat and it's Ilk ? I haven't found any (but it may just not have made the news as much because frankly,

[GNU-linux-libre] Re: [Gnewsense-dev] 9wm - No FSF Free

Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - schreef: Rubén Rodríguez Pérez wrote: El vie, 28-08-2009 a las 23:48 +0100, Marco Oliva escribió: The argument that there's a strongly-implied right to modify is unlikely to fly in many countries outside the US. -

[GNU-linux-libre] A call to free software, and its users

Every Day! Kind regards, Sam Geeraerts

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Additions to Software_blacklist

Karl Goetz schreef: == isdnutils == This source package contains multiple binaries, of which isdnactivecards is one. Not sure if this is relevant - I can't find a gNS bug about why it was removed to start with. There is no original bug report, but it came up again in an issue with Builder