Change for Caldera OpenLinux Workstation
lh at lutz-horn.de
Thu Jun 28 17:20:35 UTC 2001
* Georg C. F. Greve <greve at gnu.org> [20010628 19:00 +0200]:
> || On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200
> || Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de> wrote:
> lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian
> lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual
> lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives
> lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your
> lh> system.
> Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is
> determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not
> satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to
> apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.
This is correct. But at least they care about the problem and provide an
easy way to determine if a system contains non-free software even if
this is measured by their own guidelines. I guess it's difficult enough
for a project the size of Debian GNU/Linux to get all people pulling in
one direction. I remember discussions last year about dropping support
for the non-free packages altogether. This resulted in some heated
But since we are talking about criteria here, one would be if the
distribuor cares about the idea of free software or if he produces a
"value-added" distribution. Of all the mainstream distributions I know
about (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware?) Debian GNU/Linux is the only one
actively informing their users about the notion of free software.
Another criteria could be the naming of the game. I think Debian
GNU/Linux is a shining example when it comes to naming the distribution
Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de>
For PGP information see header.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Discussion