| |||||||||||||
The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure bootThe FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure bootPosted Jul 2, 2012 21:28 UTC (Mon) by gowen (guest, #23914)In reply to: The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure boot by pabs Parent article: The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure boot
Speaking personally, I find it extremely hard to take seriously an organisation that rejects Debian and the DFSG as insufficiently dogmatic.
(Log in to post comments)
The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure boot Posted Jul 2, 2012 21:42 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
FSF's criteria isn't a test of how dogmatic Debian is. As long as Debian has a non-free repository, it doesn't meet the FSF criteria regardless of semantic games played to make the DSFG not apply to that repository. Other parts of Debian are even more stricter than FSF in some cases including the issue of documentation licenses.
FSF criteria itself is based on the Fedora one although Fedora doesn't qualify because of the firmware exception.
Side issue Posted Jul 2, 2012 23:16 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] This is a side issue. While the FSF doesn't think that Ubuntu or Fedora are completely free, that doesn't mean that they are going to pretend that they don't exist, aren't influential, or can't be worked with.
|
|||||||||||||