Talk:Astra Linux

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Astra Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714204611/http://www.astra-linux.com/features/menu-example.html to http://www.astra-linux.com/features/menu-example.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714222642/http://www.astra-linux.com/support/chasto-zadavaemye-voprosy.html to http://www.astra-linux.com/support/chasto-zadavaemye-voprosy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203239/http://www.astra-linux.com/nastrojka-apt.html to http://www.astra-linux.com/nastrojka-apt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

GPL

An editor recently added information to the article claiming that Astra Linux does not abide by the terms of the GPL. The claim was originally sourced to a two-year-old Reddit discussion, which linked to an article on a defunct blog called Linux Homefront Project. A Google search for "Astra Linux GPL" brings up a few Russian-language blog and forum posts that look like they're about the controversy, but I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources to warrant including this information. clpo13_(talk) 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• No "Intellectual property" section was intended to be contained in this article. At the first time, it was added by this anonymous edit in October 2015, and no reliable sources were provided both then, and now. Can we simply remove the existing named section right now? It is the remnant of this controversy and isn't actually needed because a lack of sources. --ssr (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an "anonymous" user who added information about misleading licensing claims by astra linux. I'm not reverting or inserting unclaimed information. The information is being reverted immediately by people associated with the Astra Linux organization. I'm an Open Source engineer and a licensing specialist. I have no account on wikipedia. I did provide 3 links to confirm the text I was trying to attach. One of the links from astra linux site - an official statement of the company about its licensing restrictions. It's an authoritive source. The other two links are from wikipedia itself - about GPL licensing and from gnu.org site about gpl licensing. I guess all three links are authoritive. From my text it is transparent and clear, that Astra Linux violates the GPL licensed software it's using. The three links if you open and read them just prove that. What is the reason of removing my edit? It is correct and have authoritive links attached! I can see a violation and misuse of wikipedia here by some editors one of whom claims to be a russian government representative on wikipedia (astra associate itself with russian gov) and the other one is an editor with a couple reverts from astra linux wiki page, made long time ago, again from the part concerning violations. He should be an astra linux employee I guess. To me it seems that the company behind Astra Linux does it best to hide its violations, since I've demonstrated an authoritive sources and a factual text about violations and got back nothing except blind removals. No forums, no guesses. Exact statements with urls to sources! This case should be reported to senior wikipedia editors. The current wikipedia article about Astra Linux is MISLEADING. The licensing violation information should get back. 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A link to reddit was just an additional link and it was removed on the request. And I have no idea about that tlhp.cf site and what is in there - did not even open it. I've come from the astra-linux licensing page and attached links to GPL on wiki and to gnu.org. Providing detailed description and motivation for addition. 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Reference: the anonymous user is currently writing other paragraphs also here. --ssr (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In a follow-up to that discussion: there's no need to talk about what user works where. It's personal data not related to the article content. Also, it is suggested that discussion should be held here, not there --ssr (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference: the discussion link is broken. Here is the working one 188.162.195.10 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"State-sponsored" category

Is there a source on that? Used by the state is not the same as state sponsored. --eugrus (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)