[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 14:51:02 -0500

On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 13:49 -0500, John Sullivan wrote:
> Robert Call <address@hidden> writes:
> > 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. 
> Hi Bob! PureOS contacted us about review some months before Uruk. We
> try
> to go in roughly order of application, though it doesn't always make
> sense to do that since it can in certain situations lead to a
> significantly slower process for everyone.
> Some questions were raised with Uruk on this list in June 2016.
> Donald
> may already know the answer to this, but I couldn't tell from a quick
> scan whether these questions were legitimate and fully resolved.
> We are proceeding with the queue of distros waiting for evaluation.
> We are also taking a close look at the PureOS kernel and our
> standards
> for that, and will be following up.
> So I don't think we are playing favorites -- we're doing our best to
> keep this process working as efficiently, fairly, and correctly for
> everyone as we can. We're very appreciative of all the work that
> people
> are putting in on these distros in order to advance user freedom --
> let's all stay on the same team here.

If the problem is time and resources, could the FSF maybe start a page
on that would show : the distros that have
asked the FSF to be reviewed, which ones have started the public review
process and document the issues have been found? It would offer a bit
more transparency and everyone would be on the same page as to where in
the review process the distros are.

Maybe the endorsed distro review process could be handled in similar
way that the FSF directory is maintained and the FSF could teach people
where to look for non-free things in these distros. The goal would be
to get more people actively involved in the review process.

Hopefully these (or other) solutions could pave a way forward. Even
with a lack of time and resources, I don't think it is acceptable to
not respond to distro maintainers that had already started the review
process, just a "we are still looking into it" or "there is still an
issue with x" would be sufficient.

Robert Call (Bob)

reply via email to

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