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

[Andrew Ferguson]

Perhaps something along the lines of what was done for the evaluation of 
single-board computers (i.e: with no flaws, with minor flaws, with 
serious flaws, with fatal flaws).

On 03/06/16 17:35, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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.