gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Robert Call
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] add uruk gnu/linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:31:27 -0500

On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 20:49 +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:57:00AM -0500, Robert Call wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 10:57 -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> > > On 01/19/2018 03:19 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > hi
> > > > What about add uruk gnu/linux to gnu free list
> > > > I asck this Questions  again
> > > > Let's finish this long long story
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > the FSDG says to request evaluation by sending an email to
> > > <address@hidden> with a description of the system and a link
> > > to
> > > the
> > > distro web page
> > > 
> > 
> > Responding in this way does not help since they had already done
> > this.
> > There have been a few threads already about Uruk GNU/Linux. I'm
> > still
> > quite infuriated that the Free Software Foundation is giving
> > special
> > treatment for some over others. At lest Uruk uses the linux-libre
> > kernel and they did set up their own repository that they control.
> > While they still leverage Trisquel's repositories, I could
> > understand
> > that it does take quite a bit in terms of infrastructure to fully
> > maintain a standalone repository. The FSF should be willing to help
> > if
> > there is a problem with a lack of infrastructure. If I need to
> > reach
> > out to Uruk and try to remedy this issue I will.
> > 
> > If the FSF continues to pick favorites, I personally would have to
> > withdraw my support of the Free Software Foundation. 
> 
> Don't rush with such statements, I do not see
> which facts did you observe that "FSF is picking
> favorites"?
> 
I did not "rush" with making my statement and I fully stand behind what
I said. Maybe before bashing me, you should follow the mailing list a
bit more closely.

For example, PureOS was added to the endorsed distro list even with
several long standing issues (mainly the usage of the debain kernel
which advertises missing non-free firmware blobs). ConnochaetOS[1] was
submitted for review was denied based on the fact that they were using
the Debian deblobbing scripts vs. the linux-libre deblobbing scripts.
Is this fair?

I have seen Uruk given a runaround for quite a while now and from what
I had seen they addressed most (I might be wrong) long standing issues.
I don't see anyone else standing up for Uruk or try to move this
process forward. At least give Uruk a technical reason why they can't
be endorsed instead of ignoring them.

> Did you contact personally somebody from FSF and
> asked what is wrong? Did they answer to you?
> 
I have talked with a few people at the FSF over the years and all of my
concerns have fallen on deaf ears. A month ago I made my concerns known
to RMS (including this) and got nowhere.

I personally am not willing to support an organization that drifts away
from its mission, picks favorites and makes critical compromises in
regards to software freedom. 


[1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-12/msg000
04.html
--
Robert Call (Bob)
address@hidden
https://bobcall.me



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]