[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF

From: Ivan Zaigralin
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] reply FSF
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:39 -0700
User-agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.172-gnu; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )

I really don't think we should discuss any more hypothetical scenarios in this 
thread. I would agree with you that Freenix forum is a more appropriate place 
to discuss how we present documentation and how that affects our users' 

The real question here is, the way I see it: why does

say that Freenix "passed community evaluation for all FSDG criteria and [is] 
awaiting final review by the FSF licensing team" on one hand, and on the other 
hand "Ineiev via RT" <address@hidden> just informed at least one curious 
user that there is an unresolved FSDG-related issue, raised in a community 
forum, and then directed the user to a post which does not raise any such 
issue, according to the post's author?

At the very least, we here at Freenix would like to know which of these 
seemingly contradictory scenarios is actually taking place.

On Friday, June 21, 2019 17:41:59 bill-auger wrote:
> i suppose the question is whether there is indeed an issue that
> is unresolved
> * are there links on the freenix website that lead users to the
>   slackware website?
> * if yes, does the slackware website contain
>   recommendations or instructions for using non-free software?
> * if yes, is that a FSDG problem?
> i dont know the answer to any of those questions myself; but if
> this were still up for community discussion, i would note that
> when parabola was created, it had the similar stated goal to
> stay as close to arch as possible
> the original parabola devs took the time to copy the most
> important documentation from the arch wiki onto the parabola
> wiki, some edited for FSDG-compliance, some not edited -
> presumably that was in order to avoid directing users to the arch
> wiki for any reason, because the arch wiki contains instructions
> and recommendation for using non-free software
> i am not certain if that was strictly required for them to do so
> though - perhaps there is a subtle issue to clarify on this list
> - namely, whether the documentation must avoid external links
> that lead websites that are known to contain recommendations,
> that could be construed as indirect recommendations - perhaps
> there already is a consensus on that concern - i am not sure
> if that is a DSFG problem, the simple solution would be to remove
> any links to slackware documentation - even if that leaves the
> freenix documentation incomplete, complete documentation is not a
> criteria for endorsement

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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