Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Docker

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 22:54:37 -0400 Richard wrote:
> Docker is one of the many package manager systems that we will need to
> address one by one.  (I expect that we will find that the differences
> between them lead to a need for different solutions.)

they are quite conventional though - there are two general ways to handle it

all could be addressed by the approach denis chose for docker, which is the
least user-friendly option - a slight variation to that, would be to curate
libre-only repositories for each package manager, and hard-code that URL, so
that the user needs not to define one (but then the user would be unable to
define any other alternative, such as the package manager's standard repo)

the other generally applicable approach is only possible if the the package
manager's standard repo exposes licensing metadata - in that case, the client
could be modified to filter non-free results - unfortunately, most do not
indicate the license, or even require that the uploaded defines one

recently, one of them (flatpack) decided to do that - their tool now offers an
option to filter "free-only" - thats not quite sufficient; but it does make
the tool easier to patch (to force that option always)


On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 22:54:37 -0400 Richard wrote:
> If so, maybe we should explain to all free distros how to fix it that way.

that is what i see as the primary value of the "List of software that does not
respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines" (not only to warn about
certain problematic programs, but also to offer suggestions for how to liberate
them)