[Top][All Lists]

[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. 

Robert Call (Bob)

reply via email to

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