:''From http://trisquel.info/en/wiki/roadmap''
No. It's from http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist#vrms, which
points to
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-02/msg00027.html as
reference.
:''It is an attack against free speech because the views are different
between Debian and GNU. Different view of free software is not allowed by
Trisquel if the package is removed.''
Let's recall some concepts here.
''Free Speech'' is your right to propagate your ideas without interference.
(There is restrictions on that, for example, in Brazil, the apology to
crime.) This doesn't mean other people has to provide you means for doing
that, or that anyone is obliged to listen to you.
The difference of views is not something that can be allowed or forbidden. It
happens. What also "happen" is that Trisquel is commited to FSF's
[https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Guidelines for Free System Distributions], and vrms is commited to Debian's,
which appears to conflict with FSF's in some points, which '''makes''' the
use of vrms in Trisquel by an unaware user misleading.
Also, it's misleading because it misuses RMS name; his points of view differ
from those obviously.
:''A distro can of course select what packages it includes. But in this case
additional work has been done to /exclude/ a package just because it uses
debian guidelines for free software.''
Well, it wasn't even included at the first place. Even if it was, the only
work it takes to remove and blacklist it is a few commands.
And it is not blacklisted '''just''' because it uses Debian's guidelines. It
is because it is incomplete, misleading and unnecessary (''sic'').
:''There are reasons why VRMS reports GNU FDL docs as non-free. (link)''
1. I didn't read that ''draft'', but it appears to be about GNU FDL 1.2
(dated 2002). The last version is 1.3 (dated 2008):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
2. Even if there are reasons Debian folks call it "non-free", Trisquel
doesn't abide to their views, but to FSF's ones, which... See:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html#Debian
:[...] ''VRMS is not pointless because it is a good joke.'' [...]
Then what you are saying is not much pointless too. But it's not a ''good''
joke...
:[...] ''Also, VRMS could be developed to behave in a little bit same way as
"your-freedom" package in Parabola.'' [...]
your-freedom is a blacklist, just like the one where you got that about vrms,
which, as Banana pointed out, just checks from which Debian repo the thing
came. So, Parabola doesn't ship it too:
https://parabolagnulinux.org/packages/?q=vrms
:''Trisquel repos being free does not mean that the user of Trisquel would
automatically use free software.'' [...]
Yes, it means, because to use Trisquel ''is'' to "automatically" use Trisquel
repositories, from which Trisquel is conveyed.
