Re: [gNewSense-users] Vrms Comments

[Ted Smith]

On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 11:33 +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:48:53 -0400
> Ted Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 07:11 +0100, Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix -
> > wrote:
> > > Ted Smith wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:05:01 +0000
> > > >> Eric Morey <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I found this post and comments on Vrms to interesting:
> > > >>> http://blog.nizarus.org/2009/09/are-you-a-100-free-user
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Eric...
> > > > 
> > > nice one ted
> > > > 
> > > > RMS would certainly not agree with (much of) this output.
> > > 
> > > some guy called ompaul made a comment about it on the web page
> > > pointing out that we kind of IGNORE IT COMPLETELY but it seems he
> > > was wrong.. ;-)
> > > 
> > > MOST of us ignore it. ;-)
> > > 
> > Actually, there's a long history (going back to Gobuntu) of trying to
> > reform VRMS. It's never really taken off. 
> > 
> > All it would take is a small bit of ubuntu-ization to make the
> 
> Or a not-so-small bit, as it requires patching all the packages which
> (in)correctly report themselves as free/non-free.
> 
Really? I thought vrms just looked at which repository the package was
in, but maybe it has a blacklist of GFDL packages or something like
that. 
> > behavior correct in Ubuntu (which uses the FSF designation of
> > freedom) and gNewSense. Nobody wants to write the perl code, I
> 
> well.... for some value of 'use' ;)

It uses the FSF definition as much as Debian uses the DFSG.
> kk

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part