As much as I agree with the aims of the FSF & GNU, I'm perplexed that
*none* of the mainstream distributions were on that list, especially
Debian which, IMHO, is one of the more "free" versions out there.
--
Drew
"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
--Marie Curie
They say same about Redhat. But, sure they are too strict about it.
"Red Hat's enterprise distribution doesn't seem to have a clear policy about
what software can be included. Our understanding is that it makes it easy to
obtain nonfree software, even beyond the proprietary firmware included with
Bassu wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I was seeing the FSF's GNU site and noticed that CentOS was included as
> the proprietary or unendorsed distribution and not as the one following
> their free software distribution guidelines. So my question is, is it
> really not possible to comply with them or are we
Hello,
I was seeing the FSF's GNU site and noticed that CentOS was included as the
proprietary or unendorsed distribution and not as the one following their
free software distribution guidelines. So my question is, is it really not
possible to comply with them or are we just not willing to!
I thi
4 matches
Mail list logo
