Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about software distributions on the list

[Steffi Tinder]

Hi Simon!

Thanks for your clarification and your effort you put into the
guidelines. And also your attempt to untangle this 3-in-1-discussion
(terminology, guidelines, where-do-I-draw-the-line-between-good-and-evil).

> Does anyone have any comments on this version? I think it's
> reasonable, but then I wrote it. I'm looking for constructive
> criticism rather than to have a debate about the side issues (that's
> why I tried to separate the threads). I don't mind off-list comments
> if you feel the list is already too burdened with it.

I find the terminology difficult. For me it doesn't really feel right to 
call Debian a 'free software distribution with caveats' or 'distribution 
that contains free software' (if the instructions are regarded a 
recommendation). I understand the reasoning behind it but I think if 
something as basic as finding appropriate names is too difficult, then 
it can be helpful to take a step back.

The MFS wiki page says "for example we see some GNU/Linux distributions 
as a good Free Software choice whereas FSF officially do not".

If that is the case, why do terminology and guidelines used on this list 
have to be based on the official FSF approved distributions list? Why 
not come up with an independent definition?

Steffi

> I have two comments with respect to other posts:
>
> Debian and Ubuntu are not being singled out. They are examples, and
> the ones that happened to be mentioned early on.
>
> This is not intended to prevent/discourage/exclude conversation that
> is on topic for the mailing list. It is rather intended to clarify
> what is on topic. If you don't think it does that, please tell me
> why.
>
> Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Fsuk-manchester
> mailing list address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester