Talk:List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation

This should *really* be moved to something with a shorter title. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this title is ridiculous. 190.189.230.31 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO alternatives might sound easier to read, but would either risk ambiguity or be longer, but let's try some suggestions anyway:

List of free GNU/Linux distributions html page title of http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - debate: is the "free as in software" meaning obvious enough, given the "GNU/Linux" in there?
List of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions (with the risk of % itself probably ending up html-escaped as %25 :) ?)
List of fully free as in free software GNU/Linux distributions - less ambiguous, but longer
List of fully free-as-in-speech GNU/Linux distributions - unambiguous, but long
Liste de distributions libres de GNU/Linux - short and snappy, but non-French speakers might complain or invoke Guidelines and allege that English-language equivalents of this expression exist and are commonly used

i would tend to go for the first option - List of free GNU/Linux distributions - it's generally pretty difficult to come up with something better than what GNU people come up with... Boud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC) - minor correction to what i had intended to type Boud (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to "List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation". Yes, it's unwieldy, but both the current title and all the ones suggested above suffer from the problem that they're not a correct description of the content. This page is a list of Linux distros endorsed by the FSF, and should be presented as such; pretending it's a canonical, indisputable list of The Only Free Distros is non-NPOV to the point of being disingenuous. Wikipedia is not an FSF advocacy site, and information from the FSF needs to be presented in the same way as information from any other source: neutral and explicit about the source. I've rewritten the introduction from scratch with this in mind. Cheers! -- simxp (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Linux

Are there any claims contrary to what the Ark Linux wikipedia entry claims, it is not 100% free? Or alternatively, can someone find at least a diret claim by Ark Linux that it is 100% free? After searching for 5-10 minutes, i failed to find such a claim. The style of the distribution does seem cool, so the claim is credible, but when Ark Linux itself does not even make such a claim, it would require someone a bit of effort to search/download/grep through the distribution to make a sanity-check minimal verification. Boud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark Linux FAQ says that it uses free software and open source software licences: http://forum.arklinux.org/index.php?action=pages;sa=2/ - this is now on the Ark Linux page. Is this strong enough to include it here?

If there are no objections within some reasonable delay, i'll add it to the list. Boud (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, to my knowledge Ark contains a version of the Linux kernel with the usual proprietary bits included, like most of the other distros. Unless there's a specific claim to the contrary (not just the usual, looser, Free software claims), it shouldn't be added. Greenman (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]