Re: [GNU-linux-libre] what of the distros that have already asked for consideration or have been partially evaluated?

[Donald Robertson]

On 03/21/2018 11:42 PM, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 19:47:37 Jason Self wrote:
>> bill-auger <address@hidden> wrote ..
>>
>>> BTW - the actual OP for free-slack is here:
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-07/msg00021.html
>>
>> OK so freeslack can probably be updated that it's on hold pending a
>> name change. (Based on Donald's 2017-04-06 email quoted at
>> https://www.freeslack.net/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=7&goto=15&#msg_15)
>>
>> Although do we still consider it on hold if it's been over a year?
>> Things can change in that time; perhaps distros should be expected to
>> re-apply and start from scratch in cases where a large amount of time
>> has gone by.
> 
> Erm, you would want distro maintainers to re-do the paperwork because FSF 
> took 
> a year evaluating a simple query? Or, as it feels more likely in this 
> particular case, leaving it on the back burner and doing nothing at all?
> 
> I think it would be more in line with FSDG evaluation process to simply 
> assume 
> that no new bugs crept in during this time, based on the fact that no bugs 
> were made known to maintainers via the mailing list or a private channel. 
> This 
> is consistent with the existing policy of not continually evaluating the 
> distro after it's been accepted. Assuming good faith on the part of distro 
> maintainers, FSF currently hopes that *reported* freedom bugs will be fixed 
> in 
> a timely manner. If there is an outstanding, reported bug which hasn't been 
> fixed in a specified period of time, then I think it is suitable to revoke 
> the 
> certification, or to kick the approval process back to square 1.
> 
> In case with FreeSlack though, there are no outstanding freedom issues, and 
> the only open issue is in the FSF's court. I believe that re-doing the 
> application would be redundant, and would just waste everyone's time.
> 

I don't think we need to ask for any additional paperwork here. As Ivan
pointed out, distros getting to this point should already have the
systems in place for maintaining their freedom status. And my part of
the process still involves a last check over issues. Perhaps if I find
lots of problems with a distro that arrives on my desk I could send it
back to the list for additional help. But we don't have to assume that
is needed just because a lot of time has passed.
-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature