Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
> > re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
> plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst
> others. There may be cases where debian regards software as free while
> FSF does not, because of our different ways of evaluating licences,
> although I cannot think of any current examples.
>
gnu-linux.org and gnulinux.org are registered to somebody in Turkey,
whereas fsf-linux is not currently registered.
Namespaces are not a problem as long as it remains a strict subset (i.e.
main only) of Debian, and indeed fsf-linux user finding a bug in a
package could presumably file it against the Debian BTS since if it is
a real bug then it is also a bug in the Debian package.
Apart from the GFDL I am not aware of any licences which are DFSG
free, but which do not meet the description of Free Software as used
by the Free Software Foundation. (and there the issue is the other
way round)
John
Reply to: