[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 22:23:16 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Excellent work Ivan, thank you for pushing forward
free system distribution!


* Ivan Zaigralin <address@hidden> [2019-06-21 22:10]:
> On Friday, June 21, 2019 18:46:17 Ineiev wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 06:00:32PM -0400, bill-auger wrote:
> > > i dont remember exactly, but it appears to be in response to
> > > someones concern that the freenix documentation is incomplete,
> > > which is not a problem on its own; but that, more importantly, it
> > > directs users to the slackware documentation to provide its
> > > missing information
> > 
> > Quite right,
> >
> > says,
> > 
> > > It makes zero sense to duplicate the documentation, since our
> > > project is dead set on keeping the technical details identical
> > > to Slackware as much as possible, allowing us not to fork
> > > support.
> > 
> > I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved:
> > if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it
> > effectively directs its users to Slackware?
> Before I address these concerns, please let me share with you my emotional 
> state. I am getting rather frustrated with this conversation, although I am 
> definitely not blaming anyone in particular for that, except for possibly 
> myself. The thing is, Freenix has committed to compliance with FSDG prior to 
> 2017. We have received a number of relevant bug reports since then, and we 
> took care of each and every one of them. To mention just some, we changed the 
> project name and removed offending packages, like some fonts and some Mozilla 
> products.
> Bill says rather explicitly, he has no bugs to report, he's just musing. FSF 
> has not told us the official FSF position concerning these hypothetical 
> scenarios either. Our entire documentation at can be skimmed in 
> minutes; if there's an FSDG-related bug there, having to do with either the 
> links or the quantity of documentation, it hasn't been reported in years. Do 
> you perhaps see now where we are coming from? We are not aware of anything 
> afoul of FSDG within our project as of right now, and one of our primary 
> goals 
> is to take freedom bug reports with full seriousness. We are at a loss as to 
> what else we need to do at this point of the FSF approval process in order to 
> move it along, so some clarification would be very welcome.
> Now, to address the issues raised in Bill's original post:
> To the best of my understanding, the issues there have to do with 
> documentation and/or linking to Slackware documentation. The entirety         
> of 
> Freenix documentation is currently in one place: There's wiki 
> there, a forum, and the source code for the deployment script. If 
> quality/quantity of documentation is a concern for this certification 
> process, 
> it's there for anyone to see and judge.
> There are a few Web links, as of now, from our wiki to Slackware-related 
> resources. None of them are with the intent to provide documentation to 
> Freenix end users. They are all credit and/or reference links, practically 
> unavoidable simply because we believe it is our duty to explain to our users 
> and the potential contributors just what we do to the upstream Slackware 
> distribution to make it into a freedom-respecting product.
> Once again, please let us know if there's anything there you see that is in 
> violation of FSDG. 

reply via email to

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