--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valhalla@gmail.com wrote:
On 2016-04-25 at 14:34:15 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Debian is available for mipsel.
... but debian isn't FSF-Endorseable,
but its main repository has been recognised as a valid distribution to use to check whether some bit of hardware is compatibile with free software:
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-debian-join-forces-to-help-free-software-us...
ah good find elena.
"While the FSF does not include Debian on this list because the Debian project provides a repository of nonfree software, the FSF does acknowledge that Debian's main repository, which by default is the only place packages come from, is completely free."
i've been speaking with josh gay very recently, so the FSF Endorsement criteria are very clear to me: basically, josh explained that by allowing people to have an RYF Certification, they are in effect promoting the FSF "Trademark", and are therefore DIRECTLY working as agents for and on behalf of the FSF.
if there is *anything*that could potentially bring that trademark and the FSF into disrepute, then they simply cannot take the risk of giving you an RYF Certificate.
examples of that would be:
* the main landing page selling the RYF-Endorsed product downloads and executes arbitrary non-free programs (usually javascript but java and flash would count as well) in the end-user's web browser.
* the product contains "temptations" to install proprietary programs (such as, there's only exclusively non-free hardware functionality available) and the process by which installation of that non-free proprietary software is not only easy but is *ACTIVELY* encouraged.
so on that score, for example, ubuntu is totally... ahh.... {insert appropriate term here}.
however, debian definitely counts as well, because by installing synaptics package manager (which is easy), you can then add "non-free" repositories (easy), then (easily) download non-free programs. and that would bring the FSF's entire Charter and purpose into disrepute.
i have to check, but my feeling is, if they removed the nonfree GPG keyring from the standard debian-archive-keyring package and placed it into a debian-archive-keyring-nonfree package, which *wasn't* signed by default in a special version of debian-installer, All Would Be Well In FSF Land.
of course, standard debian-installers would then have _two_ keyring packages to download.
all of this i should actually be able to code up myself, by redoing that initial package and making sure that there's a separate (overriding) repository with pinning on that replacement debian-archive-keyring package. means recompiling debian-installer but that's cool.
l.