Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Uruk GNU/Linux evaluation

[Joshua Gay]

>> No, but it's directly related to being actively maintained, which is
>> a condition for endorsing as a fully free distro; and this
>> endorsement is exactly what we discuss.
> 
> I disagree with applying this criteria, even worst when based on
> narrow yet blurred definitions as "self hosted repository".
> 
> A recent example of the problem caused is here:
> 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2015-04/msg00013.html
> 
> where RLSD, an excellent distro which is 100% free, has been excluded
> on the basis of not being "self hosted" while its nature would
> perfectly justify cross-compilation.

I think that in situations such as with Uruk and with RLSD, if just one
criteria remains which is not being met, but it is still a 100% free
distro (or a derivative of a 100% free distro), then this list should
email address@hidden explaining the situation and the FSF and RMS
should check to see if the criteria should perhaps be adjusted to make
room for another useful free distro. This is how we went about adding
the small distros section to the list.