http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:08:51 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <samgee@...> wrote:

> Brett Smith schreef:
> > Maybe it would be most useful to add something like an optional
> > "Related package names" field to the infobox we're already using?
> > And this could intentionally be a little vague/flexible, so that it
> > could be useful for all these cases: variant package names for
> > specific versions or distros (like firefox-3.0), one entry for all
> > the troublesome metapackages, one entry for both bnetd and pvpgn,
> > etc.
> 
> Indeed. I think the heading should be the software name (e.g.
> Mac-on-Linux emulator) and then a "Packages" field can list the
> package name(s) in the distros (e.g. mol).

hm,
not a bad thought. if someone wants to update the template it sounds
like a good way forward.
kk

--

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:41:40 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <samgee@...> wrote:

> Henry Jensen schreef:
> > Where can I find gNewSense's Blacklist (aside from plain
> > Bugreports)? I have found
> > http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/SuspectedNonFree. Is there something
> > else?
> 
> 2.x: bzr branch bzr://sandbox.gnewsense.org/builder/ (file
> packages-to-remove)
> 3.x: bzr branch http+urllib://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/gnewsense/metad/
> (file archive/blacklist)

The parkes branch i've started (but which is waiting on this
conversation and then some spare time) is at 
bzr branch http+urllib://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/gnewsense/parkes

You'll notice its got 3 files not 1 - the names are fairly self
explanatory.
kk

--

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

Re: tcpd

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:39:41 -0500
"Tlamaki GNU/Linux" <distro@...> wrote:

> Hi Karl.
> 
> chromium is a game, I hope there is no confusion with

i've renamed the chromium entry to chromium-bsu. if you know which
versions are problematic please list them.

> chromium-browser. I have questions about chromium-browser. It may be
> added to the list?

I agree, I meant to list it in my other email, but i must have missed
it.

> >> lphdisk
> >> wink
> >
> > Why did you add these two?
> 
> I'm in the process of building a distribution. These packages are
> common in openSUSE and Debian derived distributions. In future free
> distributions can operate the warning, while not change your license.
> But if there is no problem so I can remove these reports. 

i'm aware you are building a distro, but:

why should we remove these packages? you don't provide any links or
explanations about why they are problematic to this list.

http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:01:23 +0200
Henry Jensen <hjensen@...> wrote:

> Hello, 
> 
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:06:59 +0930
> Karl Goetz <karl@...> wrote:

> > * Under 'references', should we be including more then one? 
> 
> I'm for it. On Security/Vulnerability lists like Bugtraq ot the CVE
> list it is a good and common practice to reference more then one
> source, generally bug reports.

ok, lets do it :)

> And while we are at it, I would like to mention another blacklist
> here: http://www.parabolagnulinux.org/docs/blacklist.txt from the
> "upcoming" distro Parabola GNU/Linux.

Is there anything on that list not already on NONFSDG or in this email?
if so perhaps add it in.
kk

--

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:56:23 -0400
Brett Smith <brett@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 12:06 +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > firefox-3.0
> > 	same reason(s) as firefox. could share the heading?
> > kubuntu-meta, ubuntu-meta, ubuntu-artwork, and equivilant
> > metapackages. do we care? we probably just want a section
> > 'metapackages' or something and dump all of debian/ubuntu/other
> > metapackages in there if we do.
> 
> I'm concerned that if we separately list individual-but-related
> packages, the list could quickly get *too* comprehensive, and make it
> more difficult for people to find useful information when they're not
> searching for something very specific.  (But maybe that's an
> unimportant use case?  You tell me.)

I tend to agree. the way i built the list was a copy paste into a file,
then some shell magic to pull out the headings and list them. imo thats
almost the perfect way for it to work :)

> Maybe it would be most useful to add something like an optional
> "Related package names" field to the infobox we're already using?
> And this could intentionally be a little vague/flexible, so that it
> could be useful for all these cases: variant package names for
> specific versions or distros (like firefox-3.0), one entry for all
> the troublesome metapackages, one entry for both bnetd and pvpgn, etc.

In the case of firefox-3.0 its a new binary package, but for the same
browser with the same problems.

http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:04:14 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <samgee@...> wrote:

> Karl Goetz schreef:
> > hi all,
> > I've started comparing gNewSense's two blacklists with the NONFSDG
> > [1], and its brought up some questions about the page, and some
> > potential new additions.
> > 
> > [1] http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG
> > 
> > == Questions ==
> > * Under 'references', should we be including more then one? in the
> > case of 'aee' the page currently links to trisquels. its also gns
> > savannah bug 28950. (This is a bad example, but the point remains).
> > This would allow us to reference NONFSDG instead of each referring
> > to our own bug reports.
> 
> So a distro blacklist refers to NONFSDG and NONFSDG refers to one or
> more bug reports? Sounds good to me.

Thats my plan, now to force it on everyone ;)

> > == Potential Additions ==
> > (Anything not accepted for the list i'll re-enable in gns).
> 
> (snip)
> > libsnmp-base (may not be a real problem, looks like its rfcs)
> > 	http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=498475
> > libsmi2-common (may not be a real problem, looks like its rfcs)

lphdisk, wink

Hi
I would like to start a discussion on these packages (attached their
licenses):
lphdisk
wink

And if there is possibility to add to
http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Software_blacklist


--
José Luis
A tlamaki (libre) developer.

The "Artistic License"

Preamble

The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package
may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of
artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users
of the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less
customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications.

Definitions

     "Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
     Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files
     created through textual modification.

Re: lphdisk, wink

> Hi
> I would like to start a discussion on these packages (attached their
> licenses):
> lphdisk
He seems to have The Clarified Artistic License
and...
ChangeLog:
    24 July 2000 - Name changed from "phoodisk" to "lphdisk"


--
José Luis
A tlamaki (libre) developer.

Re: tcpd

Hi Karl.

> i'm aware you are building a distro, but:
>
> why should we remove these packages? you don't provide any links or
> explanations about why they are problematic to this list.

I have sent to the mailing list. And I deleted the records in the the List
of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines.


> The top of of the page says 'Please do not add a package to this list
> until it's been discussed on gnu-linux-libre and/or with RMS.'.

Had not read it slowly. And I was thrilled to contribute. Thanks for the
guidelines let me know.


--
A tlamaki (libre) developer.

Introducing LibreWRT GNU+Linux

I was reminded that there's been no announcement of LibreWRT on gnu-linux-
libre, so here goes a short message...

LibreWRT is a completely free GNU+Linux distribution that targets embedded 
systems such as the Ben Nanonote, ath9k-based WiFi routers, and other hardware 
that respects your freedom.

LibreWRT was born in the hackspace provided the last LibrePlanet meeting, on 
the principal that we need to be able to use all of the computers in our lives 
in freedom (even the small ones like WiFi routers), and after failing to find 
any other embedded GNU+Linux distribution that had user freedom as its primary 
goal.

The project can be found at librewrt.org.

All are welcome!