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

Zlatan, it is not the word that is forbidden, at all. And some articles on FSF websites are obviously 6 years old, older then Free System Distribution Guidelines. It is about what a Free System shall promote, not what users shall promote. As I told you free system is like teacher, users are studen

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

Was tempted to reply but didn't want to make it public, so here is PM to you On 11/11/2016 12:38 AM, Matt Lee wrote: There are lots of alternatives to proprietary software listed here: http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving -- for both OS X and Windows users. One does not simply use forb

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

There are lots of alternatives to proprietary software listed here: http://www.fsf.org/working-together/moving -- for both OS X and Windows users.

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

> In regards to your website, now the website is promoting both Puri.sm > and PureOS. And on many pages, you have "alternatives" to proprietary > software, references to FLOSS and FOSS, and others. [Just a curious passer-by here.] Sorry, what’s wrong with having a page listed free / libre replace

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

Ha ha ha, that is right and funny. There is not alternative to freedom, and freedom is not alternative to jail (proprietary software). Maybe the difference is that fsf.org is not a Free System Distribution, and Stallman.org is also not a Free System Distribution. It is now for webmasters to corre

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

Dear Jeff, I am actually visiting your website. So, no, I am not looking what you have done 2 years ago. I click on your pages. I think you should be endorsed, even if you have tasks to do yet, to adopt the software, and adopt the teaching on your websites (alternatives to proprietary, FLOSS, FOSS

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

On 11/10/2016 03:34 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > Actually, if I were you, I would not give up on referencing your hardware > products from the PureOS website. If Trisquel can recommend computers with > non-free BIOS (they do) for use with their OS, you should be able to do so as > well. I think y

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

Le jeudi 10 novembre 2016 à 10:26 +0200, Jean Louis a écrit : > > OK, to be really pure, when you change the page, that it does not promote your products, than simply say so. Jean Louis, we've been incrementally revising and improving the website contents for months in preparation for this. Just o

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

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:03:51PM -0800, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > 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

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] review PureOS ISO

Hello Francois, Thank you for your short story. Interesting, and I am glad you have recognized values in free software. Myself, I am not opposing you or anyone to use the simple word. I am rather specific, and accurate, just when you program, you want to be specific, or the end result will not be

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

John Sullivan writes: > such a connection. If Canonical, for example, wanted to produce > something based on Ubuntu that met the FSDG criteria, we would certainly > consider that. > (This was actually a poor example on my part, because we *are* concerned about confusion between endorsed and not

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

On 11/10/2016 06:51 PM, Jean Louis wrote: > > To me you sound very reasonable. > > In regards to your website, now the website is promoting both Puri.sm > and PureOS. And on many pages, you have "alternatives" to proprietary > software, references to FLOSS and FOSS, and others. > > By having a

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

I appreciate the concerns raised about the nonfree boot firmware on machines sold by the same company leading development of PureOS. That is a concern for RYF (and is a concern generally, of course, we want all machines to be all free). It is not a concern for FSDG endorsement, except insofar as m

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

To me you sound very reasonable. In regards to your website, now the website is promoting both Puri.sm and PureOS. And on many pages, you have "alternatives" to proprietary software, references to FLOSS and FOSS, and others. By having a separate website, with more proper terminology, you are qui

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

Hello, My name is François Téchené, I am director of creative at Purism. I am also co-founder of the Ethic Cinema organization (ethiccinema.org) which promotes free cinematographic art. I have been reading through this discussion and I can understand the point of view of the FSF. I can also under

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

On 11/10/2016 02:11 PM, Julie Marchant wrote: On 11/10/2016 07:33 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: I am neglecting answers which want to steer company's business decisions and water discussion into hardware and not to OS certification. Nobody has raised objections to PureOS being pre-installed on im

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

On 11/10/2016 07:33 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > I am neglecting answers which want to steer company's business decisions > and water discussion into hardware and not to OS certification. Nobody has raised objections to PureOS being pre-installed on imperfect systems. What they have raised objectio

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

On 11/10/2016 03:34 AM, hellekin wrote: > As suggested, your best bet now that the whole discussion is ingrained > with LibreM notebooks, is to find a replacement chip for the BIOS that's > compatible with Libreboot. I gather this is not at all possible, and > you're still working on having the ma

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

On 11/10/2016 12:13 PM, Jaromil wrote: dear Ivan, On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: Zlatan, you should probably try to get this sorted out through the official channels, and cite the Trisquel's supported laptop list as an example. it can't get "more official" than this, really. u

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

Hi, On 11/10/2016 09:34 AM, hellekin wrote: On 11/09/2016 01:43 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: Hi all (again), we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want to march together on this road with you and

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

dear Ivan, On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > Zlatan, you should probably try to get this sorted out through the > official channels, and cite the Trisquel's supported laptop list as > an example. it can't get "more official" than this, really. up to now Zlatan has been negating mos

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > 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? there is such a list all 100% fre

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

On 11/09/2016 01:43 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > Hi all (again), > > we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We > built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want > to march together on this road with you and see the final release of > PureOS 3.0 a

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

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:28:53AM -0500, Jeff F. wrote: > > So: Any hardware, containing and kind of software inside, and > > recommended by free system distributions shall be compatible with > > Free System Distribution Guidelines. This way, blobs, firmware, non- > > free software in such hardwar

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

Le jeudi 10 novembre 2016 à 8:10 +0300, Jean Louis a écrit : > When I land on a web page of free system distribution, I don't expect > it to recommend me any non-free hardware. With some tags on such > hardware, like Trisquel has made a list, it gives me a freedom of > choice. > > If I am however

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

This makes sense, but If Trisquel can endorse laptops with nonfree BIOS (and not only they endorse it, they apparently get a sales cut), then so should be able any other FSDG-compliant distribution. Completely in line with previous suggestions, the PureOS would probably still need its own net do

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

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:51:14AM +1100, 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

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 provide an answer? To > be su

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 software to be fully f

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

On 11/09/2016 10:55 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: By non-free hardware I mean specifically the hardware with non-free software pre-installed or the hardware that won't work without non-free software. I did not mean to make a statement about "free hardware" proper, whatever that might be. And I co

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

By non-free hardware I mean specifically the hardware with non-free software pre-installed or the hardware that won't work without non-free software. I did not mean to make a statement about "free hardware" proper, whatever that might be. On Thursday, November 10, 2016 08:51:14 Riley Baird wrot

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 approve > any project that advertises and/or delivers non-free software Should Tris

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

I am sure that xombrero, uzbl and surf, may replace IceCat, even as a main browser in some system distributions: 1) surf, with option -s the javascript is disabled. or Ctrl-Shift-s the script execution is toggled - so very easy, uses Webkit I guess. 2) xombrero - it has javascript whitelists, and

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

For all the criticism I leveled against Icecat in the last year, I am in fact using it as my primary browser, and we include it in FreeSlack as the Firefox replacement. It is not perfect, but is certainly is a viable solution, for users as well as for distro maintainers. Nice to hear others are

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

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:01:51AM -0800, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > you distribute a browser which suggests non-free addons, period. I am well > known around here for criticizing Icecat, so I am not saying that's > what you Straying from subject: - IceCat is great for some usage, but bloated, I ha

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

>> On 09.11.2016 18:42, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > We are mirroring Debian main archive for that and AFAIK Firefox is > entirely FLOSS, but it allows non-free extensions. It would be a bit > radical to remove it because users can access non-free extensions - we > can use lynx to access websites t

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

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:22:19PM +0100, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > We are mirroring Debian main archive for that and AFAIK Firefox is entirely > FLOSS, but it allows non-free extensions. It would be a bit radical to > remove it because users can access non-free extensions - we can use lynx to > acce

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] review PureOS ISO

On 09.11.2016 19:22, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > On 11/09/2016 06:08 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: >> On 09.11.2016 18:42, Zlatan Todoric wrote: >>> On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does it use? >

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

On 11/09/2016 06:08 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: On 09.11.2016 18:42, Zlatan Todoric wrote: On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does it use? It is based on Firefox ESR and it will have two xul extension

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

On 09.11.2016 18:42, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: >> What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does it >> use? > > It is based on Firefox ESR and it will have two xul extension from > archive (https and ublock). We discovered

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

Hello Tiberiu-Cezar, On 11/09/2016 05:24 PM, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote: Hello, What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does is use? It is based on Firefox ESR and it will have two xul extension from archive (https and ublock). We discovered bug (non-responsive t

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

Hello, What browser the PureBrowser is based on? What add-on repository does is use? Thanks, Tiberiu -- https://ceata.org https://tehnoetic.com

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > 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. what a pity you do not even contemplate libre-boot! however, en

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

On 11/09/2016 05:13 PM, Jaromil wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: On 11/09/2016 04:52 PM, Jaromil wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bi

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > On 11/09/2016 04:52 PM, Jaromil wrote: > >On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > > >>>tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor > >>> facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios > >>> firmware is also dis

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

On 11/09/2016 04:52 PM, Jaromil wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios firmware is also distributed software We do not recommend nor faciliate

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > >tl;dr - an 100% free distro should not include, recommend nor > > facilitate the installation of non-free software. a bios > > firmware is also distributed software > > We do not recommend nor faciliate installation of non-free software, a

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

On 11/09/2016 04:33 PM, Jaromil wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Jean Louis wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:05:05PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: Jean Louis, these points aren't really relevant - we're considering whether the OS is free, not the hardware. May I be more precise, the purpose of disc

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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Jean Louis wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:05:05PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > > Jean Louis, these points aren't really relevant - we're considering > > whether the OS is free, not the hardware. > > May I be more precise, the purpose of discussion is to see of the Free >

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

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:05:05PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote: > Jean Louis, these points aren't really relevant - we're considering > whether the OS is free, not the hardware. May I be more precise, the purpose of discussion is to see of the Free System Distribution fits into the Free System Distri

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

Dear Zlatan, I was using uzbl browser, and have just made few checks. I guess you will not like it, according to your last response to me. So, let us review the Free System Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) in regards to the section Commitment to Correct Mistakes -- I just recommend it to you, a

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

Jean Louis, these points aren't really relevant - we're considering whether the OS is free, not the hardware. On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:17:20 +0300 g...@rcdrun.com wrote: > Hello Zlatan, > > I am following this list, as a user of GNU, and somebody who compiles > those to me needed GNU packages from

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

Oh Zlatan, I am sorry to offend your feelings. On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:01:33PM +0100, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > I see that on your website, you are selling notebooks. I don't know > > nothing about them, and if you are calling them Librem, I just assume > > they are without proprietary BIOS. >

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

Hello, On 11/09/2016 08:17 AM, g...@rcdrun.com wrote: Hello Zlatan, I am following this list, as a user of GNU, and somebody who compiles those to me needed GNU packages from sources, and I endorse all free and FSF endorsed GNU distributions. Sadly I am in such a position that cannot easily o

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

Hello Zlatan, I am following this list, as a user of GNU, and somebody who compiles those to me needed GNU packages from sources, and I endorse all free and FSF endorsed GNU distributions. Sadly I am in such a position that cannot easily order a computer without proprietary BIOS. At least I don't

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

Hi all (again), we are restarting the process of getting PureOS as FSF endorsed OS. We built new infrastructure and released alpha 2 image publicly so we want to march together on this road with you and see the final release of PureOS 3.0 as FSF endorsement of PureOS. Image available for download

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:45:41 -0400 Julie Marchant wrote: > Tor Browser is included. Tor Browser is libre, but it features an > update facility which is not controlled by the developers of PureOS > (they are delivered by the developers of Tor). The issue is also that it also contains an add-on man

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

On 06/11/2016 10:15 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > > On 06/11/2016 03:45 AM, Julie Marchant wrote: >> This is what /etc/apt/sources.list contains in the PureOS I installed >> from the ISO listed on Purism's page on PureOS: >> >> debhttp://security.debian.org/ stretch/updates main >> deb-srchttp:/

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

On 06/12/2016 11:36 PM, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > >> We are ONLY working on PureOS distribution endorsement in this thread. >> Please stop combining the two. > > Should I continue on another thread for the non-pureOS related > discussion? > If so, is that mailing list appropriate? > >From

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:20:37 -0700 Todd Weaver wrote: > Well this thread took a turn way off topic. Indeed, sorry for that. > This is IRRELEVANT to getting PureOS distribution endorsement. > It is VERY RELEVANT to getting FSF RYF certification. I wasn't suggesting that it was relevant at all. I

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 > "Debian is not FSF endorsed"

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

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 04:15:25PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > We are as mentioned undergoing a transition for new infrastructure > and will make it clearly visible but I assume opening any kind of > bug on github (even the one saying please make a repo for bug > reports or whatever) shouldn't

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

On 06/11/2016 03:45 AM, Julie Marchant wrote: * Your distro should not have users select official Debian GNU/Linux repos. These repos have contrib and nonfree areas and many Debian packages make it trivial easy to select the contrib and nonfree areas. Users don't need to be prevented from manu

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

>> * Your distro should not have users select official Debian GNU/Linux >> repos. These repos have contrib and nonfree areas and many Debian >> packages make it trivial easy to select the contrib and nonfree areas. >> Users don't need to be prevented from manually adding repos, but your >> distro

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

Julie, Julie Marchant writes: > Again, proving that you are either an idiot or a liar. If Google could This, and other personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith, violate our list standards. Respectful communication even on issues where there is disagreement is a principle of this list. Pl

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

On 06/10/2016 03:21 PM, Julie Marchant wrote: >> We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more. >> So let's discuss those points. > > It is a relevant point to consider because you are behind PureOS. Not > because you being a malicious actor makes your distro proprietary pe

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

On 06/10/2016 12:20 PM, Todd Weaver wrote: > Well this thread took a turn way off topic. > > We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more. > So let's discuss those points. It is a relevant point to consider because you are behind PureOS. Not because you being a malicious

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

Well this thread took a turn way off topic. We are trying to have PureOS, our distribution reviewed, nothing more. So let's discuss those points. On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 15:42 +0200, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:16:28 -0400 > Julie Marchant wrote: > > I said, and this > >

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

Hi, On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:16:28 -0400 Julie Marchant wrote: > I said, and this > is factually correct, that they were and still are promises you cannot > keep. It is *impossible* to make any x86 CPU made after 2013 > (including the ones used by the Purism laptops) respect your freedom, > because

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

On 06/09/2016 12:37 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > They are promises for sure but not cheap ones made. It is all work in > progress and we are gathering great team and discussing a lot of things. > It is not easy to fight this and we choose our way of doing which > currently means sacrificing few thin

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

Hello, On 06/09/2016 05:31 PM, Julie Marchant wrote: > I don't know whether or not PureOS is libre, but I just want to suggest that > anyone investigating this question be extra thorough. Purism has a history of > making promises they couldn't keep (namely the promise of making the "librem" >

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

Hello, On 06/09/2016 05:24 PM, Joshua Gay wrote: > * Can you tell us how you go about deblobbing the kernel? Did you base > your work on an existing set of scripts used to deblob the kernel or did > you write your own? We used libre kernel before but we now settled with Debian kernel which is si

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

Hi all (I'm CTO of Purism) On 06/09/2016 02:57 PM, Riley Baird wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:35:24 +0300 > fr33domlover wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:34:27 -0700 >> "Adrian Alves" wrote: >> >>> Hello FSF, >>> >>> We are Puri.sm our gnu/linux PureOS is a free based debian distro, >>> can

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

I don't know whether or not PureOS is libre, but I just want to suggest that anyone investigating this question be extra thorough. Purism has a history of making promises they couldn't keep (namely the promise of making the "librem" laptop respect your freedom, something which is literally impos

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

* Can you tell us how you go about deblobbing the kernel? Did you base your work on an existing set of scripts used to deblob the kernel or did you write your own? * Do you comply with this section of the guidlines: ()?

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

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:35:24 +0300 fr33domlover wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:34:27 -0700 > "Adrian Alves" wrote: > > > Hello FSF, > > > > We are Puri.sm our gnu/linux  PureOS is a free based debian distro, > > can you guys review it. > > We not only use Free software without any "contrib" or

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

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:34:27 -0700 "Adrian Alves" wrote: > Hello FSF, > > We are Puri.sm our gnu/linux  PureOS is a free based debian distro, > can you guys review it. > We not only use Free software without any "contrib" or "non-free" > software also our kernel is deblob'd > We offer PureOS tog

[GNU-linux-libre] review PureOS ISO

Hello FSF, We are Puri.sm our gnu/linux  PureOS is a free based debian distro, can you guys review it. We not only use Free software without any "contrib" or "non-free" software also our kernel is deblob'd We offer PureOS together with our laptops and also to any people who wants to use it: links