Fedora not "free" enough for GNU?

[Christopher Brown]

2008/9/7 Michel Salim <michel.sylvan at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Mamoru Tasaka
> <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Michel Salim wrote, at 09/07/2008 03:57 PM +9:00:
>>>
>>> I was just over at gnu.org to download the anniversary video recorded
>>> by Stephen Fry, and while I was there decided to take a look at what
>>> systems they recommend as being free.
>>>
>>> They list BLAG, which is based on Fedora. But Fedora itself (and
>>> Debian) is not there!
>>>
>>> http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
>>>
>>> This struck me as rather strange, especially considering their
>>> guidelines are actually based on Fedora's (and we are thanked for it):
>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
>>>
>>> As far as I remember, Rahul Sundaram was talking to the GNU / FSF
>>> people about this quite a while back. Is it just the difference over
>>> binary-only firmware that's consigning us to the "non-free" heap?
>>
>> I cannot do any legal comment here, however I just want to say that
>> I don't want to see the nightmare which happened on fedora-list any more.
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-July/thread.html#01481
>>
> Apologies; I stopped reading fedora-list due to the volume, but I
> ought to have checked it first.
>
> Just two things:
> 1. If Fedora ships a firmware blob-free alternative kernel, someone
> could create an official Fedora spin that's good enough for RMS

This thread might be of interest:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-kernel-list/2008-August/msg00008.html

and then if whoever really wants to remove the rest of the blobs
(wireless, ALSA etc.) can do so, submit the finished spin to the FSF
and hopefully put this one to bed once and for all.

> 2. Should we perhaps link to MarkMail from the mailing list archives site?

Not sure why this is relevant.

Cheers

-- 
Christopher Brown

http://www.chruz.com