Should we abandon 'fortunes-ubuntu-server' package from Trisquel repos?

5 risposte [Ultimo contenuto]
lap4fsf
Offline
Iscritto: 10/12/2014

Synaptic Package Manager lists a package named 'fortunes-ubuntu-server'. According to the package description available:-

"This package provides a set of tips on using Ubuntu server, in a
fortune database format."

Since we don't embrace Canonical's 'open source' culture, it makes perfect sense not to use their server software too, unless its liberated from non-free blobs.

I would like to know if this package can be removed/abondoned from Trisquel repos.

lembas
Offline
Iscritto: 05/13/2010

It certainly seems to have a lot of ubuntu and canonical related items so we probably should get rid of it.

leny2010

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Iscritto: 09/15/2011

I've looked at this package. Firstly, yes there are branding and GNU FSDG[1] problems with some of the entries, so please open an Issue for those. There are only 64 fortunes in the package, so fixing the English version is doable.

Note that Ubuntu's 'Server' is like Trisquel's drawn from the same package repos as the desktop flavour. So where the software mentioned is free it is also in Trisquel.

However, there is a wider point raised by this thread. Trisquel is interested in Branding and GNU FSDG issues, *not* arbitrary censorship of all things 'open source' just because we happen to have philosophical differences with them. If we believe in software freedom, then we better also have a strong grasp on freedom of speech and opinion.

Note that doesn't mean I think people are at liberty to ignore the forum guidelines.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

leny2010

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Iscritto: 09/15/2011
lap4fsf
Offline
Iscritto: 10/12/2014

Hi Leny,

Please mark the bug report I filed here https://trisquel.info/en/issues/14344 as a duplicate of your bug report.

davidnotcoulthard (non verificato)
davidnotcoulthard

The links you and Leny posted seem to suggest that it's his post that's a duplicate :)