Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Ethical hosting means Free Software hosting

[Aaron Wolf]

On 06/03/2016 09:21 AM, Andrew Ferguson wrote:
> One thing that bothers me regarding the criteria is the inconsistency
> between this and the criteria for 'Fully Free Operating Systems'. With
> the repo criteria, GitLab is acceptable despite GitLab.com running on
> proprietary software and showing pages advertising the proprietary
> GitLab EE. With the operating system criteria, Debian is not endorsed
> because non-free is 'not thoroughly separated from the main Debian
> distribution' and 'the installer in some cases recommends these nonfree
> firmware files'. I feel that this inconsistency should be addressed.
> 

Probably the distro list should switch to the same multi-level criteria
too. It's absurd that Debian just gets lumped in with Linux Mint or
whatever because it's black-and-white all-or-nothing.

The set of distros currently endorsed should be "A" level and Debian and
any others of that ilk that really can easily and even default by
fully-free should be "B" level, maybe not need a "C" level, but still…

The hard-line approach is a balance between pushing harder toward ideals
versus the GNU/FSF criteria being so rigid as to be ignored and irrelevant.