Hi all
* Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org [20010628 19:00 +0200]:
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200 || Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de wrote:
lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your lh> system.
Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.
This is correct. But at least they care about the problem and provide an easy way to determine if a system contains non-free software even if this is measured by their own guidelines. I guess it's difficult enough for a project the size of Debian GNU/Linux to get all people pulling in one direction. I remember discussions last year about dropping support for the non-free packages altogether. This resulted in some heated arguments :-)
But since we are talking about criteria here, one would be if the distribuor cares about the idea of free software or if he produces a "value-added" distribution. Of all the mainstream distributions I know about (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware?) Debian GNU/Linux is the only one actively informing their users about the notion of free software.
Another criteria could be the naming of the game. I think Debian GNU/Linux is a shining example when it comes to naming the distribution correctly :-)
Regards Lutz