[Selfhosting]: [librewrt-dev] LibreWRT and the Guidelines for Free System Distributions - Help with Compliance]
wijnen at debian.org
Sat Oct 2 08:56:36 EDT 2010
Op 02-10-10 00:53, David Reyes Samblas Martinez schreef:
> mmm Danny if you are listening,
> Does Distribution refers only to software, isn't it? why then not
> complile LibreWRT for a 386 machine and crosscompile to Nano be
> posible? as far as i know FSF only is concerned to software, so I bet
> when they say distribution is only the software itsetlf not the combo
> software/hardware, so no need to make a nano cluster (in spite I will
> love to see one working :P) just a 386 version of librewrt running on
> midde/high power machine needed, isn't it?
I thought of this as well. I think this is what he meant with:
>> (c) LibreWRT just includes say all of gNewSense or Trisquel in its
>> source tree, and calls the combination LibreWRT. This would of course
>> be a cheap and ugly semantic trick, but would seem to conform to the
>> self-hosting requirement (however IANBCS).
However, I don't think it needs to include anything. Aren't all compile
tools already in it?
I do think it makes sense to choose option B, though, and allow a free
system to be built with another free system (and not with itself).
However, it should perhaps have a different name (something like "free
limited system"), to emphasize that it isn't a "full" system as people
expect for a desktop computer.
>> (2) Naming disambiguation requirement
>> However, we will not list a distribution whose name makes confusion
>> with non-free distributions likely. For example, if Foobar Light is a
>> free distribution and Foobar is a non-free distribution, we will not
>> list Foobar Light. This is because we expect that the distinction
>> between the two would be lost in the process of communicating this
>> So we currently call it "LibreWRT". There is of course also "OpenWRT",
>> on which "LibreWRT" is based, and also at least one other GNU/Linux
>> distro that uses the *WRT convention, "DD-WRT". Do you see the
>> "LibreWRT" name as being a problem? If so, do you have any alternative
>> naming suggestions?
This is a problem, which can be solved by renaming the distribution. Of
course that's a decision for the LibreWRT people. Whether or not to
rename is a bit of a dilemma: with a familiar name, people using OpenWRT
are more likely to go use LibreWRT instead, which is a good thing. But
people using LibreWRT may also go use OpenWRT more easily...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the discussion