[Arm-netbook] Free distribution certification (was Re: eoma68-jz4775 x-ray pictures)

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

hi paul thanks for chipping in... and also for changing the subject to
something sensible.  brief comments below.  btw yes i have already
referred people in the FSF (as part of working out how to apply for
RYF Certification) to this discussion, and also remember, archives are
forever and completely public and open to anybody, so please
everybody, be respectful and always assume the best intentions on part
of contributors to the discussion.

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:

> "We will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion with nonfree
> distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a free distribution and
> Foobar is a nonfree distribution, we will not list Foobar Light."
>
> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#name-
> confusion
>
> So, if Debian is "nonfree" (let us not get into why or how they might reach
> that conclusion), then you won't get a Debian-branded certified distro.

 ok so that explains why distros create separate web sites.


> On providing non-free software:
>
> "The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific
> recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."

 so, if someone creates *third party* recipies - not hosted on the
main web site - then that's absolutely fine, which explains why so
many people wonder why it's quotes ok quotes to add foreign
repositories.

> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license-
> rules
>
> This is the big obstacle. I suppose Trisquel and gNewSense get around this by
> hosting their own repositories and not hosting the non-free ones.

 pretty much, yeah.  which explains why they're old, as it's a hell of
a lot of work.  arch-linux is slightly different.

> What worries me the most is the burden that might be created.

well, the idea that occurred to me was to have a separate (minimalist)
repository of "forked" packages, and to have those as overrides
(pinned priorities) but otherwise include the standard debian line in
/etc/apt/sources.list.

 the next phase on from that - if it's not even acceptable to do that
- would be, yes, to mirror only the free packages from debian (across
all architectures.  this is a cross-architecture project, after all).

 i would not, of course, be mirroring the debian wiki with its
documentation and references to non-free software.

l.