Re: [GNU-linux-libre] add uruk gnu/linux

[Riley Baird]

And, while we're on the topic, I'd like to remind everyone that it's
been more than 3 years since LibertyBSD was released.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:45:47 -0800
Ivan Zaigralin <address@hidden> wrote:

> I think this is a very good idea. I have to confess, we are not feeling very 
> confident while FreeSlack is stalling in the review queue.
> 
> In our case, we've been informed that "FreeSlack" is afoul of FSDG because 
> it's too similar to "Slackware". We pitched "Freenix" and "FXP" as 
> replacement 
> distribution names in April 2017, and haven't heard a word since. This puts 
> us 
> in an interesting position: when our users ask us, so what are you guys 
> called 
> again?, all we can say is: not FreeSlack.
> 
> We also receive regular suggestions/requests to get the FSF certification. 
> And 
> of course we do tell our users what exactly is going on, the way we see it 
> from our side, but wouldn't it be like 100 times more easy and reassuring for 
> the users to read FSF's own Changelog of the review process? If users rely on 
> FSF certification to pick distributions, they won't be quick to blindly trust 
> the claims of progress made by projects still under initial review.
> 
> On Friday, January 19, 2018 14:51:02 Robert Call wrote:
> > If the problem is time and resources, could the FSF maybe start a page
> > on https://libreplanet.org that would show : the distros that have
> > asked the FSF to be reviewed, which ones have started the public review
> > process and document the issues have been found? It would offer a bit
> > more transparency and everyone would be on the same page as to where in
> > the review process the distros are.
> > 
> > Maybe the endorsed distro review process could be handled in similar
> > way that the FSF directory is maintained and the FSF could teach people
> > where to look for non-free things in these distros. The goal would be
> > to get more people actively involved in the review process.
> > 
> > Hopefully these (or other) solutions could pave a way forward. Even
> > with a lack of time and resources, I don't think it is acceptable to
> > not respond to distro maintainers that had already started the review
> > process, just a "we are still looking into it" or "there is still an
> > issue with x" would be sufficient.