[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list (was:
From: |
Bob Ham |
Subject: |
Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list (was: Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one?) |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:09:38 +0000 |
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 15:18 +0000, Simon Ward wrote:
> Guidelines:
>
> Neither Debian nor Ubuntu should be promoted as *free software
> distributions* on this mailing list. Note my highlighting, this is quite
> specific. This goes for any system not in the List of Free GNU/Linux
> Distributions[1], or rather that fails to follow all of the Guidelines
> for Free System Distributions[4].
I would suggest that we do not qualify the promotion and just state that
neither "should be promoted on this mailing list"..
> Debian may be promoted as a distribution that aims to be free software,
> so long as it is also made clear that Debian fails to follow all of the
> Guidelines for Free System Distributions[4].
..with this caveat, which is fine.
> Please avoid promoting Ubuntu, or any other system that does not strive
> to be completely free.
Ack.
> Feel free to talk about free software on Ubuntu and other non‐free
> systems, or how to cajoule the systems into being entirely free. Take
> care to avoid promoting this situation, it’s possible and better just to
> install a free software system.
Ack.
> Do bear in mind that this mailing list is not intended to be a support
> list, more a discussion about Manchester Free Software itself and the
> political and social issues surrounding free software. While many of us
> are happy to help with users having issues with free software, some will
> be reluctant to assist those trying to run free software on a non‐free
> system and vice versa.
Ack.
> When discussing any non‐free software, please make it clear that it is
> non‐free, and be sure to mention free software alternatives where they
> exist.
Ack.
> Does this sound reasonable? Is it too strict, or too open to
> interpretation? Are the requirements to mention failure to be completely
> free, or free software alternatives too onerous?
Seems fine.
--
Bob Ham <address@hidden>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about non-free software on the list (was: Any folks in Manchester interested in participating in an Ubuntu Global Jam event if I were to organise one?),
Bob Ham <=