Re: Proposal: GR to deal with effects of a personal dispute
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 01:28:13PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Sven Luther is suspended from all debian lists for a year, which should be similar to (b), because the project generally liked his two-month self-suspension and wishes not to receive his discussion contributions at the moment. [...] 3. Sven Luther is reinstated as a full developer, reversing (a), because the project wishes to receive his technical contributions. It seems with 1 in operation, he cannot act his developer Powers according to constitution 3.1, numbers 2 propose or second draft General Resolutions and 3 propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections. FWIW a suspended developer doesn't have such powers anyway. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question to the Debian community ... (Was: Question for Sam Hocevar Gay Nigger Association of America)
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:50:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:41:56AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: Martin, annoyed by you turning every thread on every debian list into a svenl-was-treated-so-bad-one Oh, so i suppose from the above that debian has had only a single thread on their mailing lists these couple of past weeks/months ? It seems that way. At least, every thread on debian-vote and debian-project eventually evolves in to Sven's gripes with the world. I think we need a new variant of Godwin's law. As soon as anyone mentions Sven versus Frans versus Aj versus d-i versus the DAMs, the thread should cease immediately. (And perhaps all parties involved should be executed. Starting with me for getting sucked in.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question to the Debian community ... (Was: Question for Sam Hocevar Gay Nigger Association of America)
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:32:41PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:45:03PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:21:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Well, i got suspended for a year, because i dared present myself as DPL, No, that's simply not true. You have delusions of grandeur. [..] The decision was solely taken by the two DAMs, contrary to a 70:7 majority of opinion of DDs, while one of the points of my DPL plateform The expulsion procedure doesn't call for a vote, so your 70:7 statistic is irrelevant. The procedure calls for opinions only. The individual supporting emails aren't relevant. The DAMs are allowed to make a judgement call, which they did. The only appeal would be via GR. Later, Sven wrote: So, you too, believe that what was done to me was acceptable, that everything is justifiable, so long as your precious mailbox is left empty ? And well, the reality is that the expulsion request got The irony is that the one thing the DAMs *didn't* do is prevent you from posting to the mailing lists. Please, give us some peace. Give yourself some peace. Go and find a new project where you can make a valued and appreciated contribution. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question to the Debian community ... (Was: Question for Sam Hocevar Gay Nigger Association of America)
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:21:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:01:52AM +0200, Rob Burgers wrote: you know all this flamin is starting to make you guys look like childeren.. yer profesionals act like it otherwise debian will lose its user base. Well, i got suspended for a year, because i dared present myself as DPL, No, that's simply not true. You have delusions of grandeur. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the 2IC
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:56:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 2/20/07, Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:37:44 +, MJ Ray wrote: Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to devel-announce: [...] What else is coming soon? We're part-way into the DPL election process for 2007[13]. I've just announced I'm standing again this year; [...] Campaigning period is February 25th - March 18th. The above is 5 days early, isn't it? Is campaigning on devel-announce this year? So where is this campaigning? This is just a report on what he did last year, which was (IMHO) overdue. Go and play somewhere else Great, so can i move forward and do the same and ask others candidates to point out what they did in the last year, and add cheap propaganda bits here and there? It wasn't too polite from Steve, IMHO. He lost a great opportunity to avoid use d-d-a to promote his campaign even before the campaign period starts. Please Martin, just check the timing of the things and how it was planned. I agree with Martin - all of Steve's report is as expected from the 2IC. He mentioned in passing that he would be running for DPL this year (as he did last year), and that's all. Feel free to send a Bits from Gustavo message to d-d-a if you like. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? The way buildd requests are dealt with... might not be broken, but is certainly suboptimal. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based buildd does nothing to improve it. The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about it); it's the fact that he was running a rogue buildd. I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:15:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then you don't see any conflict of interest between the arm buildd admin and the ftp-master? No, I don't. I don't see any conflict of interest in being a package maintainer and an ftp-master, either. Do you think an ftp-master should admit his own packages through NEW processing, hypothetically? The fact that Aurelien's buildd was running on qemu seems to be beside the point (and wouldn't even be detectable if he hadn't blogged about it); it's the fact that he was running a rogue buildd. Uh, no. That it's run under qemu introduces a significant risk that the builds may be unreproducible or unusable on real systems (this risk deferred the use of an emulator for autobuilding m68k until it was decided it wouldn't make the etch release, eg). Personally, I think that Fine, I agree that this was not a decision that one maintainer should make unilaterally. I don't think that another project member unilaterally banning it without discussion is right either. How about a polite request to stop while the issue can be discussed and a consensus formed? There are additional problems with running a rogue autobuilder, such as unavailability of build logs, unreproducibility of builds, and unusability of the builds by the security team. Aurelian's buildds had the additional problem that they'd repeatedly rebuild packages they'd already uploaded, which isn't really useful. There's a potential issue wrt whether the build environment is secure as well, but I'm not familiar enough with that on any level to comment in any detail. All these could be solved by someone committed to making sure they do at least as good a job as the regular buildd network though. Aren't most of these problems (rebuilding packages unnecessarily and unavailability of logs) due to the difficulting getting new buildds added to the regular network? Are there technical reasons why we can't add new buildds more freely, or only political/social reasons? I mean, how dare he try to help the project in this way. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the project, the problem is when you don't give a damn about the problems your attempts cause. Having Yes, many parties involved in this issue are guilty of this. a debate on the lists or running a GR doesn't help show qemu builds are workable, and doesn't help your build system provide the features the existing build network does that other developers rely on. I find it pretty hard to see this as trying to help the project, rather than trying to win your rather pointless fight with the buildd admins. Indeed perhaps it was, so I'd very much like to get answers to my question above. Thanks in advance, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Frank Küster wrote: I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If They're (usually) not sent to the build daemon itself, so no. That was what I meant. (Although I was not accurate I thought my intended meaning was fairly clear.) Thanks Frank. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:35:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:51AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust would be a minimum. There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that some developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of skills/lack of time/whatever. Or simply because they don't accept/respect/understand the goals other people are trying to achieve. There's no need for everyone to do that for all goals Debian developers have, but if you're going to do things that interfere with others' goals for the distro, you do have to take some care. If you're not willing to take that degree of care, or find some way of achieving your goals that doesn't affect other folks work, you'll find you won't be trusted. That shouldn't be surprising. This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been subject to peer review. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:18:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been subject to peer review. Uh, what's this if not peer review? A proper process would be that the buildd admin / porter (person 1) would observe a problem and ask ftp-master (person 2) to reject those uploads; if both people agree it would happen. It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:47:28AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted, Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is what usually only the yellow press does. I don't trust the news they report. I would add that quoting without proper context rendering is also a known habits of too many people in MLs and generally used to enforce their own opionions and mantaining very high the level of unuseful flaming. The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:02:57AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I am sure qemu is very good at what it does, but I do not have faith that it can stand in for a real CPU in all the corner cases. If Do you think it's likely that it can boot the kernel and run the build environment without crashing, but produce broken binaries? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it wasn't accepted. Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hear hear. Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because they are difficult to upgrade reliably and they are a waste of money. We deliberately load our FPGAs with different functionality at different times and that isn't possible from ROM. The emi62.c sound driver seems to do something similar - it loads different firmware for midi and spdif modes! Very interesting. Do you consider FPGA config files as programs, or would you say that the normal DFSG requirement for source applies to those also in order to be considered fit for debian/main ? Aren't these two alternatives the same? I am interested in your profesional opinion on this, since you clearly seem to either be, or in close contact to someone who is, an upstream author of such firmwares. In any case, they are not programs (there is no sequential operation, no program counters etc) but data that gets loaded into memory circuits (SRAM) inside the physical device. However they do have source code (Verilog and VHDL are the relevant languages). The hex dumps in the drivers are not only not the preferred form, they are in fact useless for modification. The vendors don't even publish the format of that information. There are no free tools for rebuilding those images, though that isn't an excuse in itself. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of working with it it looks very much like hardware. That's just my opinion, though. Well, but it is stuff with sources. You could argue that actual hardware also has sources (the design document, schematics and routing files) though. That's true, but software also has design documentation and we don't require that to be distributed to meet the DFSG. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term firmware to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs to execute on embedded processors. I'm not sure if there are any instances of these other types in the upstream kernel, though. FWIW (and a few days late) I did some searching for drivers in the kernel (2.6.17.11 from kernel.org) which refer to FPGAs and found the following: drivers/usb/atm/ueagle-atm.c drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-cards.c sound/pci/vx222/* sound/pcmcia/vx/* sound/pci/pcxhr/* sound/pci/mixart/* sound/drivers/vc/* -- These load image via the standard kernel interface (hotplug) drivers/media/video/stradis.c drivers/net/wan/lmc/* -- Loads FPGA image supplied by an ioctl drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c -- Loads firmware from const arrays in yam*.h drivers/net/pcmcia/smc91c92_cs.c -- Loads firmware from const array in ositech.h drivers/usb/misc/emi26.c, emi62.c -- Loads firmware from const array in emi26_fw.h / emi62_fw*.h drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/* -- Loads firmware from file directly (?) drivers/media/video/dabusb.c -- From file I think. Driver is confusing. arch/sh/boards/overdrive/fpga.c -- Loads from missing file To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because they are difficult to upgrade reliably and they are a waste of money. We deliberately load our FPGAs with different functionality at different times and that isn't possible from ROM. The emi62.c sound driver seems to do something similar - it loads different firmware for midi and spdif modes! Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG don't contain the necessary modifications. Therefore, I'm proposing the following general resolution: == Following the result to GR 2006-001, the following modifications will be made to the Debian Free Software Guidelines: At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added: The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled code together on at least one machine-readable medium. Could you please explain why this amendment is necessary? The current clause #2 does not appear to prevent this restriction so I don't understand why we need to explicitly allow it. At the end of DFSG #6, the following text should be added: As a special exception, the license may forbid use of technical measures to restrict access or use of the software itself. Could you please explain why this amendment is necessary also? The current clause #6 does not appear to prevent this restriction either. I asked this same question before the last GR and nobody replied, despite claims that these exemptions were necessary. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates: plurality of mandates
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:45:44AM +0100, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: I read in Anthony's mail[0]: ftpmaster work requires a different set of skills to release management though, and frankly Joey's already got enough stuff to do, without worrying about the nuts and bolts of the dak implementation. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00157.html Do you think Debian should *officially* limit the number of delegations for one person? Do you consider this multiple hat question a problem? If yes, do you have solutions to this problem? And another question on the same topic; is the above quote not one of the most condescending seen on a debian project list in quite some time? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:19:32PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful to me is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if stuff is useful, I can share. why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't. The text of Aj's proposal does something similar actually; (2.2) Transparent Copies The second conflict is related to the GFDL's requirements for transparent copies of documentation (that is, a copy of the documentation in a form suitable for editing). In particular, Section 3 of the GFDL requires that a transparent copy of the documentation be included with every opaque copy distributed, or that a transparent copy is made available for a year after the opaque copies are no longer being distributed. For free software works, Debian expects that simply providing the source (or transparent copy) alongside derivative works will be sufficient, but this does not satisfy either clause of the GFDL's requirements. That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ... does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that doesn't seem to affect its freeness. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Hamish Moffatt] That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ... does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that doesn't seem to affect its freeness. One must remember, however, that while a mere convenience issue for our users may be a non-issue for Debian, a mere convenience issue that affects Debian directly is very relevant. Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG. As a hypothetical, if the software required Debian's FTP servers to keep the source available for 10 years, unconditionally, we'd probably refuse to ship that software on the grounds that that would be a PITA. Likewise, I think that FDL-licensed content may be DFSG-free, but considering the practical problems it causes us, we'd rather not ship any of it is a consistent and reasonable position to take. Indeed. However Aj's proposal actually argues that the transparent copies clause makes these documents non-free. That doesn't seem to be justified. I don't think Manoj's position statement document adds any additional justification either. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second Adeodato's revised amendment, as I did the earlier version. Thanks to Adeodato and everyone who contributed... Hamish On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an implicit grant of permission? There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the above example is absurd, IMHO. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot be limited only to things which explicitly modify the text. How can we measure implicitly? Anything that is not explicit is obviously open to interpretation. It seems that the GFDL's problematic clauses, other than invariant sections, don't explicitly violate the DFSG. Hence we just need to choose our official interpretation, unless you want to modify the text to make it explicit (one way or the other other). Declaring our interpretation doesn't mean modifying the text, and doesn't need 3:1. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Christopher Martin wrote: Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that there was no inconsistency. If a simple majority can yell, there is no inconsistency then the 3:1 requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned arguments against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one has done so. Perhaps I'm missing something, but [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml does not seem to specifically address why the DRM and transparent copies requirements violate the DFSG. I would like to know what the argument is, since it appears to be ok by the letter. Of course the spirit is also important but open to interpretation. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
; a secondary section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. These parts include: * Invariant Sections * Cover Texts * Acknowledgements * Dedications However, modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which state: 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. As such, we cannot accept works that include Invariant Sections and similar unmodifiable components into our distribution. ---8--- -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org - Oh, George, you didn't jump into the river. How sensible of you! -- Mrs Banks in «Mary Poppins» -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternate proposal for Declassification of debian-private archives
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:32:59AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: - - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published - will be honoured; + - If the author makes a resonable case that some material is + sensitive, then that material is redacted from that post and any + other post where it has been quoted + + - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a + post, any identifying information is redacted from that post, + and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material + is published. This policy is less generous than Aj's original proposal - the author cannot veto for unreasonable reasons, only request anonymity. I think it's right to clarify the situation for quotes, but a full veto as per the original proposal is also desirable. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2 005
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:42:55AM -0700, Gilbert, Joseph wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c [ 5 ] Choice 1: Jonathan Walther [ 7 ] Choice 2: Matthew Garrett [ 2 ] Choice 3: Branden Robinson [ 3 ] Choice 4: Anthony Towns [ 5 ] Choice 5: Angus Lees [ 1 ] Choice 6: Andreas Schuldei [ ] Choice 7: None Of The Above - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Is this a belated April Fools' joke? You didn't sign it, aren't a developer, and you CCd both debian-devel-announce and the Debian Weekly News editors(!). I'm not sure another vote for the cabal is newsworthy ;-) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote: Emmanuel le Chevoir a écrit : - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I'm so sorry for that one, that was a really stupid mistake. The good thing is that is received quite a bunch of interesting replies, along with a few (well deserved) criticisms. Again, sorry for beeing such an idiot :/ Does that mean you improved your vote also? ;-) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL candidates QA summaries
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: Hello, world! After making a final run through through the debian-vote archives I now hope to have faithfully captured 2005s DPL candidates QA on http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/ Thank you all for making Debian an OS worth spending ones time on such things! Thanks for collating this information David.. helps with the decision! Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branden's time commitments (was: Re: followup to my time-management question)
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I should have noted that xfree86 is not up-to-date with upstream as you indicate, and I'm sorry for the oversight. That's a bit unfair. X.Org is a fork and so it's not obvious that Debian should switch; newer versions of XFree86 (such as 4.5.0, just released) don't have an appropriate license for Debian. Ok, now I'm sorry on both counts. I'm grateful, however, that light Not your fault, as the situation isn't obvious by any means. BTW: All this is exactly why I wish the candidates had all taken my question seriously instead of mostly ignoring it. They are in a much better place to say this is what I think of the work I've done on package FOO than I am. Fair point. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branden's time commitments (was: Re: followup to my time-management question)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking with XFree86? If you can, please do so. Yes, until sarge is released. Of course that's Branden and the XSF's decision, in consultation with the release managers. Daniel might still be bitter that his hostile takeover of a few years back failed. I don't recall ever attempting a hostile takeover, but thanks for the sentiment, Hamish. Do you have anything constructive to contribute? You know what I'm referring to; http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/01/msg00099.html That's quite enough time wasted, anyway. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:28:57AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: There's no particular reason NEW isn't being processed -- people are just busy doing other things; some of which are outside Debian, others of which are related to getting the release out, or whatever else. That's not, in my opinion, something Debian developers have any right to ask for -- my day planner's my business, not yours. Yes and no. I think that the developers have no right to expect that any particular ftp-master (or other role) will commit any particular time or amount of time. But we should expect that the ftp-master group as a whole will accomplish its appointed tasks, which includes processing NEW packages. If there are insufficient ftp-master-hours to keep the backlog to a reasonable limit then additional ftp-masters should be trained. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: None of the individuals [...] Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles or whatever it is that you are using? It's bad enough to try and remember a couple hundred names, don't make it worse by adding a few hundred handles to that. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ finger krooger | head -1 Login: krooger Name: Jonathan Walther http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/platforms/krooger Solved that one problem, but not the general problem. I second Marcelo's request. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:37PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: 3) My package has been sitting in the queue for ages and other packages have been processed This is a communication problem. No, this is a policy problem. Communication is easy: hit M for manual reject, write a note, and it's all done. Or hit P for prod to write a note to the maintainer with the possibility of accepting the package anyway, or leaving it in the queue for later reconsideration. The issue for packages like mplayer and hot-babe is that it's not clear that they can be accepted, but it's also not clear that they should be rejected. And until one or the other becomes clear, they're left in the queue. I actually think that's a good result: far better to keep track of the problematic packages, than to just REJECT them with a reason like doesn't seem like a good idea and have them randomly reuploaded later. It also seems like a better idea to let packages that don't seem like a good idea sit in the queue, rather than get uploaded and distributed around the world. I think there are actually five outcomes (or more) but only two of them are currently communicated: 1. Accepted; 2. Rejected; 3. Delayed because we're real busy but we'll get to it; 4. Delayed because we're not sure what to do with it (mplayer etc); 5. Delayed because we've stopped processing NEW to concentrate on another issue (like testing-security or the release or whatever). The latter three don't get communicated currently. There's rumours on debian-devel that NEW processing is actual on hold (by decision rather than by default) but that wasn't communicated. Of course it may be false and I don't expect to ftp-masters to have to refute every silly rumour, but some sign of life with regard to NEW processing would also be a positive sign. My example is the gEDA packages, which consists of a library and a bunch of apps distributed as separate source tarballs but always released together. New upstream versions almost always change the library soname due to API changes, and I've always reflected the soname in the binary package name, which then requires NEW processing. The package has been stuck in incoming for 2 months now. I asked for suggestions on a better approach on debian-devel, but the only replies I got told me that I must follow the letter of policy regardless of the circumstances. This relates to the better quality packaging you were talking about too. In the end I rearranged the packaging so that the NEW package wasn't needed, though I might be violating the letter of policy now. Just to avoid NEW processing delays each time. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Second Call for votes: General resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:16:57PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 06:00:36PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think call for votes, or for that matter, any message to debian-devel-announce should not have a m-f-t towards the announcement list. Replies on d-d-a are getting redirected to d-d anyway, and I think debian-vote is the appropriate place to discuss followups on messages like this one. You might also consider in addition setting a reply-to towards [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or whatever is the ballot address of the current vote), to ease up on voting (how to vote? Hit reply, fill in you preferences after carefully researching them, and send). There WAS a reply-to. The M-F-T seems to complicate things though. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/06/msg6.html Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought, and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it. That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that we might get a representative vote this time. According to vote.d.org, there's already been 155 votes in the first 4 days, compared to 214 on the last ballot. Still, looks like the first few days are among the busiest usually. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that we might get a representative vote this time. I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like who won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people voted last time? When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as possible and have more votes? You really think this is a good procedure? Not in general. In this case a number of developers feel (rightly or wrongly) that they were misled by the previous ballot, and wanted another chance to influence Debian policy. I think that you can reasonably expect this to happen again next time the developers feel they are misled. I don't think we need to debate whether or not the ballot was misleading yet again. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussions in Debian
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what argumentum ad hominem actually is, though]. Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet? Bored, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussions in Debian
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part: there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so. This is hypocrisy at its finest. Are you not aware that you are the proposer of the two most divisive GRs that Debian has ever had? It is interesting that this does not occur on most lists. I think we have a troll infestation. We certainly do. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many possibilities as possible (hence buckshot). It really could have been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options which are *not* present indicates that the proposals weren't very carefully planned out). I can see a whole range of ways in which options 1-3 could have been better written. I'm not even sure where to start with 5. If any of these win then we'll probably end up in a spiralling sequence of votes for the rest of the year, gradually working out bugs in them. Of these, option 3 is the one which will probably result in the *least* further edits. The reason why we got into this state is because releasing sarge appears to be the sole priority - no matter how or what is released, it *must* be released soon, at the expense of all else. Yes, some developers think that, as is their right. Would you please allow others to have opinions that differ from your own? The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: How about: We, Debian developers, issue the statement: On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming release code-named Sarge, we resolve that all programs must meet the DFSG, and all software must be legally distributable. Are you deliberately using both software and programs, and do you therefore mean different things by them? Could you please define them? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Effect of GR 2004_003
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: Because there is some confusion over what the actual effects of the various options in GR 2004_003 are, I have undertaken an analysis. Walter, your analysis is useful but does not seem to be neutral; Choice 1 (Postpone until Sept 1), Choice 2 (Postpone until after Sarge), and Choice 4 (revert to old wording), will have no effect on release policy. The Release Manager erroneously concluded that ^^^ nonfree material could be included in a release [1]. Bruce Perens' comment about the freedoms expected for everything on a Debian CD, as well as the near universal agreement on debian-legal attest to the clear meaning of the DFSG. An impartial analysis would be more useful I think. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Some other comments: * Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must be started within a certain period of a resolution being proposed. I don't think this is the case. The discussion period quoted in 4.2(4) is a _minimum_. According to A.2(1), it is up to the proposer or a sponsor to call for a vote, and there is no need to hold a vote until they do so. Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already called for a vote (twice, in fact, I asked that the vote be delayed the first time for for technical vote taking rasons, and he agreed). I don't see the disagreement here. Ian says the secretary need not hold a vote until the proposer or sponsor calls for one. Manoj says the proposer had indeed called for one. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: meta-issue: interpreting the outcome of the pending vote
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [..] possible outcomes? Should we amend the Constitution to allow running an election with multiple winners, [..] Let's do that. This voting stuff is fun. Better than working on my packages! More satisfying than elections for our local politicians. Cheers Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the resolution: --- The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom, and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the 'main' or 'contrib' sections which is not free software according to the DFSG. --- This amendment essentially reaffirms that the current text of the social contract is what is meant, and that Debian does not cut corners in order to release sooner. I think you should say which is not free, rather than which is not free software, given the text of your new SC. This is not a formal proposal for an amendment. I don't want to be associated with your proposal. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:45:41PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Francesco P. Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm just saying that by a practical point of view who thinks so is pretending that hardware is free too. No, I'm not pretending that hardware is free. It may well not be, which is why we don't distribute it. Your point of view is that firmware is software. *Real* firmware is not software. But *real* firmware is *firm*, that is, you can't change it easily: it's in a ROM. And nobody is asking us to distribute it. Now there's a bizarre twist on the idea that everything is software. Are you saying that firmware in ROM, which in most cases IS programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation[1], is NOT SOFTWARE? [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software It seems that we have now redefined software totally; it is no longer either equivalent to or a strict superset of computer programs. It is now defined as a set of any bits that some entity (person or company) gave us on disk or via computer network. Storage in ROM chip is not enough. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Some other comments: * Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must be started within a certain period of a resolution being proposed. I don't think this is the case. The discussion period quoted in 4.2(4) is a _minimum_. According to A.2(1), it is up to the proposer or a sponsor to call for a vote, and there is no need to hold a vote until they do so. Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already called for a vote (twice, in fact, I asked that the vote be delayed the first time for for technical vote taking rasons, and he agreed). I don't see the disagreement here. Ian says the secretary need not hold a vote until the proposer or sponsor calls for one. Manoj says the proposer had indeed called for one. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: meta-issue: interpreting the outcome of the pending vote
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [..] possible outcomes? Should we amend the Constitution to allow running an election with multiple winners, [..] Let's do that. This voting stuff is fun. Better than working on my packages! More satisfying than elections for our local politicians. Cheers Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the resolution: --- The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom, and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the 'main' or 'contrib' sections which is not free software according to the DFSG. --- This amendment essentially reaffirms that the current text of the social contract is what is meant, and that Debian does not cut corners in order to release sooner. I think you should say which is not free, rather than which is not free software, given the text of your new SC. This is not a formal proposal for an amendment. I don't want to be associated with your proposal. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. I second this amendment. It deserves to be an option on the ballet. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. I second this amendment. It deserves to be an option on the ballet. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with as few as 35, being less than 4%. That is, a 3:1 majority of quorum(45.274). That's a very uncomfortable feeling. That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of one mind. No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree. That is less than 4% of our developer community. I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how hard it would be to change a foundation document when that GR was proposed, and now we have another set horrified at how easy it is change one. There's every sign that if people had been aware of the impact of this GR, a lot more people would have voted against it and the supermajority requirement would have failed. Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone, and that some people believe the subject of that message was misleading. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree. That is less than 4% of our developer community. (My mistake; each valid option must have at least the quorum number of votes more than the default, meaning that you actually need 46 developers to agree and that's 5%. Thanks to Manoj for clarification.) That's a mischaracterisation. You also need *all* the other developers to be absent or apathetic. Apparently not difficult to arrange, if you dress it up as something mundane and technical in a language foreign to many of our developers. If that were the case then there's a great deal of dead weight, and it would indeed be reasonable to pass the change without them. Not to this extreme, I think. Cheers Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: [bad stuff] I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels people are blaming him for the results they don't like. I don't think he was responsible for the results, just for running the vote. Comments like this don't help. This directly accuses him of mislabeling the proposal to support his own position. In otherwords, accuses Manoj of malfeance of office as Debian Secretary. You're right. I apologise to Manoj. I better quit this thread while I'm behind. There's nothing new to be said, just time to be wasted and anger to be spent. I suppose everyone who is unhappy with the outcome is looking for someone to blame. I do still believe the CFV was misleading, but that isn't the secretary's fault; he did call for proofreading after all, and he was just using the subject of the original proposal. Despite that the full text of the proposal was (of course) available and anyone could have read it and formed their own conclusions. You could even blame the people who did vote against the proposal for not campaigning more strongly against it. Or aj for not saying anything until after. But none of that helps and most of it's completely unfair. The changes may turn out to be the right thing for the project. It's pretty clear that the timing is terrible (in the opinion of many, if not all), but we can solve that with yet another GR. Just what we need(!). I do think the quorum requirement for changing the foundation documents is too low. I think we should fix that. We should probably write some code now and worry about it later though. Thanks, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with as few as 35, being less than 4%. That is, a 3:1 majority of quorum(45.274). That's a very uncomfortable feeling. That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of one mind. No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree. That is less than 4% of our developer community. I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how hard it would be to change a foundation document when that GR was proposed, and now we have another set horrified at how easy it is change one. There's every sign that if people had been aware of the impact of this GR, a lot more people would have voted against it and the supermajority requirement would have failed. Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone, and that some people believe the subject of that message was misleading. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:28:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of one mind. No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree. That is less than 4% of our developer community. You do not know what you are talking about. If less than 46 people vote the proposal above further discussion, it does not make quorum. We have per option quorum, you know. Fine. My mistake. So you need 46 people and that's 5% of the developers. Makes no real difference anyway Manoj; it's still pathetic. Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone, and that some people believe the subject of that message was misleading. People can think a lot of things, and I have no control over their opinion. I can only see things from my viewpoint, lacking telepathy; and the topic was, and is, valid from where I stand. Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least. Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the proposal at all. Call it SC changes, rather than SC editorial changes. The secretary's opinion is irrelevant to the project so please leave it out of the CFV. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:02:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree. That is less than 4% of our developer community. (My mistake; each valid option must have at least the quorum number of votes more than the default, meaning that you actually need 46 developers to agree and that's 5%. Thanks to Manoj for clarification.) That's a mischaracterisation. You also need *all* the other developers to be absent or apathetic. Apparently not difficult to arrange, if you dress it up as something mundane and technical in a language foreign to many of our developers. If that were the case then there's a great deal of dead weight, and it would indeed be reasonable to pass the change without them. Not to this extreme, I think. Cheers Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:53:04AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: [bad stuff] I don't like Manoj's tone in this thread. It's harsh, accusatory, and somewhat rude. It seems like he is reacting defensively, as if he feels people are blaming him for the results they don't like. I don't think he was responsible for the results, just for running the vote. Comments like this don't help. This directly accuses him of mislabeling the proposal to support his own position. In otherwords, accuses Manoj of malfeance of office as Debian Secretary. You're right. I apologise to Manoj. I better quit this thread while I'm behind. There's nothing new to be said, just time to be wasted and anger to be spent. I suppose everyone who is unhappy with the outcome is looking for someone to blame. I do still believe the CFV was misleading, but that isn't the secretary's fault; he did call for proofreading after all, and he was just using the subject of the original proposal. Despite that the full text of the proposal was (of course) available and anyone could have read it and formed their own conclusions. You could even blame the people who did vote against the proposal for not campaigning more strongly against it. Or aj for not saying anything until after. But none of that helps and most of it's completely unfair. The changes may turn out to be the right thing for the project. It's pretty clear that the timing is terrible (in the opinion of many, if not all), but we can solve that with yet another GR. Just what we need(!). I do think the quorum requirement for changing the foundation documents is too low. I think we should fix that. We should probably write some code now and worry about it later though. Thanks, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you seconded the GR. Yes, this is exactly my point of view, too. And I think this is what the GR did. But somehow, strangely, the release manager thinks that the meaning did change. I'm stunned that this GR passed. ... You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we should struggle to not distribute non-free items. No, nor do I propose that we continue to do so indefinitely. Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial? Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway? I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a vote. It needed more development and discussion. It was proposed on debian-devel that the GR be discussed and dissected item by item, but that never occurred - instead we went straight to a vote. Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with as few as 35, being less than 4%. That is, a 3:1 majority of quorum(45.274). That's a very uncomfortable feeling. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready for voting Then you need to read the constitution, you obviously do noty know how Debian works. Once a proposal has gathered the requisite number of seconds, the secretary has limited wiggle room in calling the vote; A2.1. I had already put off Andrew once, pleasding technical issues, after he had called for a vote; I could notr, in good conscience, keep on postponing a properly proposed GR. Actually I cannot justify your position from my reading of the constituition. The constituition says that there is a minimum discussion period of two weeks, plus/minus one week at the secretary's discretion. It says nothing of a maximum discussion period. It says that the proposers and sponsors may call for a vote. It does not indicate that the secretary must act within any timeframe or even that the secretary must act quickly. I'm not actually suggesting that the secretary should stall the vote at his own discretion. This is a hole in the constituition. (Admittedly, somewhat smaller than the one that allows less than 4% of the developers to change the social contract.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you seconded the GR. Yes, this is exactly my point of view, too. And I think this is what the GR did. But somehow, strangely, the release manager thinks that the meaning did change. I'm stunned that this GR passed. ... You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we should struggle to not distribute non-free items. No, nor do I propose that we continue to do so indefinitely. Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial? Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway? I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a vote. It needed more development and discussion. It was proposed on debian-devel that the GR be discussed and dissected item by item, but that never occurred - instead we went straight to a vote. Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with as few as 35, being less than 4%. That is, a 3:1 majority of quorum(45.274). That's a very uncomfortable feeling. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready for voting Then you need to read the constitution, you obviously do noty know how Debian works. Once a proposal has gathered the requisite number of seconds, the secretary has limited wiggle room in calling the vote; A2.1. I had already put off Andrew once, pleasding technical issues, after he had called for a vote; I could notr, in good conscience, keep on postponing a properly proposed GR. Actually I cannot justify your position from my reading of the constituition. The constituition says that there is a minimum discussion period of two weeks, plus/minus one week at the secretary's discretion. It says nothing of a maximum discussion period. It says that the proposers and sponsors may call for a vote. It does not indicate that the secretary must act within any timeframe or even that the secretary must act quickly. I'm not actually suggesting that the secretary should stall the vote at his own discretion. This is a hole in the constituition. (Admittedly, somewhat smaller than the one that allows less than 4% of the developers to change the social contract.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The Social Contract now states: ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free ] ... As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover all these areas. By the way, what was the meaning of editorial in Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR? Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you seconded the GR. I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready for voting. The tally sheet makes interesting reading: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt Draw your own conclusions. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The Social Contract now states: ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free ] ... As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover all these areas. By the way, what was the meaning of editorial in Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR? Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you seconded the GR. I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready for voting. The tally sheet makes interesting reading: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt Draw your own conclusions. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Herbert Xu knows of non-free firmware in the kernel sources and is leaving it in main until someone else finds it. That's certainly deliberate and active, if not deception. That's not really accurate. Herbert seems to be leaving those drivers in until the project decides what to do about the whole problem. The kernel source tree is huge and I can't see any sign that Herbert is aware of particular problems but ignoring them. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Raul Miller wrote: * There are people in Debian. Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian distribution. You could interpret it as meaning the Debian Project, but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that Debian means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So Debian will remain 100% Free Software is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Quite right and perfectly reasonable -- spelling out the context is a fine idea. But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to interprent the ...will remain 100% Free Software part of the sentence, and that his and/or interpretation simply wasn't one of them. No, I still think you're missing the point. Once you admit that the meaning of Debian varies with context, it follows that Debian will remain 100% Free Software has more interpretations. Firstly, the two that you posted, but then: Debian (the project) will remain 100% free software - meaningless. Debian (the people) will remain 100% free software - meaningless. etc. Once you narrow in on Debian the distribution you might only have two interpretations, but don't be so quick to assume that context. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Raul Miller wrote: * There are people in Debian. Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian distribution. You could interpret it as meaning the Debian Project, but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that Debian means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So Debian will remain 100% Free Software is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Quite right and perfectly reasonable -- spelling out the context is a fine idea. But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to interprent the ...will remain 100% Free Software part of the sentence, and that his and/or interpretation simply wasn't one of them. No, I still think you're missing the point. Once you admit that the meaning of Debian varies with context, it follows that Debian will remain 100% Free Software has more interpretations. Firstly, the two that you posted, but then: Debian (the project) will remain 100% free software - meaningless. Debian (the people) will remain 100% free software - meaningless. etc. Once you narrow in on Debian the distribution you might only have two interpretations, but don't be so quick to assume that context. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Raul Miller wrote: * There are people in Debian. Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian distribution. You could interpret it as meaning the Debian Project, but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that Debian means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So Debian will remain 100% Free Software is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Raul Miller wrote: * There are people in Debian. Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian distribution. You could interpret it as meaning the Debian Project, but that would be silly, because it would make the whole Social Contract make no sense whatsoever. (Are you software? Are you free software?) I think you are being too quick to dismiss Raul's comments. He has pointed out in the past that Debian means a lot of different things; it's a project, an OS, among others. So Debian will remain 100% Free Software is not entirely clear, given that Debian is a bunch of people in certain contexts. Why not spell out the context? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: guidelines for post-campaign period?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 05:18:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:50:17 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising for the three full days before an election. Umm. The link below tells us that there is a blackout, but not the rationale for it. True. I searched both the legislation (at www.austlii.edu.au) and the Australian Broadcasting Authority's web site (www.aba.gov.au) and neither of them gives the rationale. The aec.gov.au page says that the limitation is in the Broadcasting Act, not the Elections Act. the rationale for it. And why is the blackout limited to certain media? There are a lot of parochial rules that are not necessarily ones we ought to emulate (for example, I can't invite male caucasians to a billiards parlor a week before polling starts, out where I live). I wasn't actually agreeing with the proposal, only giving precedent. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: guidelines for post-campaign period?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The details actually vary, but the point is that there is no *time-based* limitation. Indeed, campaigning is predictably heavy on the last few days and the day itself. Perhaps it's only limited in civilised countries :-) In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising for the three full days before an election. http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/faqs/elect_ad.htm (Polling days are always Saturdays, and advertising is banned from midnight on the previous Wednesday.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: guidelines for post-campaign period?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The details actually vary, but the point is that there is no *time-based* limitation. Indeed, campaigning is predictably heavy on the last few days and the day itself. Perhaps it's only limited in civilised countries :-) In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising for the three full days before an election. http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/faqs/elect_ad.htm (Polling days are always Saturdays, and advertising is banned from midnight on the previous Wednesday.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:33:37AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user thinks our certain reputation for quality is. :-/ And which distribution does that user use now? Gentoo? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed hardware? Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and Korean users who can't view PDFs in their own language without packages like cmap-adobe-japan1, xpdf-japanese etc? It's not like they can choose to use the free nv driver instead of the closed source nvidia; TTBOMK there is no free solution at all. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Of course, and this was indeed one the prime design requirements. Do you feel your concerns are adequately addressed? No. You only proposed to start with the debian-keyring, and did not promise not to diverge from it in the future. Debian has an NM procedure and team which I've grown to trust, but an NM-for-non-free.org process would have to gain its own trust. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Does this mean that you would support the removal of all of non-free with the exception of those packages necessary to support closed hardware? Why is closed hardware so special? What about our Japanese, Chinese and Korean users who can't view PDFs in their own language without packages like cmap-adobe-japan1, xpdf-japanese etc? It's not like they can choose to use the free nv driver instead of the closed source nvidia; TTBOMK there is no free solution at all. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed transition plan for non-free and call for help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:36:49PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: [-devel and -vote CCed. Please respect the Mail-Followup-To -project. You should really subscribe to -project, it's not that big. In any case, I will try read and reply to any comment] I think this is relevant to debian-vote too, because it affects the current GR. [...] 3. The Transition to non-free.org This part should be independent from the choice of implementation. Please point out bugs here, if you find some. Setup of the non-free.org box should happen ASAP. Initially, all packages from the non-free component of the Debian archive will be transitioned to non-free.org and the Debian keyring will be used to authenticate uploads. The Debian Policy will be applied to the packages, as will the Developer's Reference (where applicable). [...] Another outstanding issue is the handling of the non-free.org keyring. We believe it should be kept synced with the debian keyring and other people should be added only after good consideration. Whether this amounts to a full-blown NM process will have to be seen. Thanks for addressing two of the issues I raised earlier in the week. Specifically I think it's important to note that you have proposed the possibility of adding non-free.org maintainers who are not debian.org maintainers. I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a less trusted source. I would have concerns myself. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]: [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I understand. Right? Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org (with infrastructure) and remove it then.? I guess many are missing this, and I just hope this wasn't forgotten. It's both the same option. I strongly believe that we will have non-free.org up at about the same time we drop non-free from the Debian archive. However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it. The answer to Gerfried's question is further discussion I believe. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian. Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users? You can probably tell that I don't, and that's a big part of why I don't want non-free removed from ftp.debian.org yet. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at the source code for the chipset, and modify it, or possibly make sure there is not some unwanted trojan included there ? Although it's not important I will point out that the chipset isn't software but rather an ASIC, and modifying it is a bit more involved than recompiling! It does actually have source code but it's no more reasonable to demand the source code for your chipset than for your Pentium 4 or Athlon XP processor. But then you may think it's quite reasonable to demand the source code for both... Actually said source code would probably be quite useful from an educational POV. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]: [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I understand. Right? Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org (with infrastructure) and remove it then.? I guess many are missing this, and I just hope this wasn't forgotten. It's both the same option. I strongly believe that we will have non-free.org up at about the same time we drop non-free from the Debian archive. However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it. The answer to Gerfried's question is further discussion I believe. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:45:20PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote: I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3? Should be 1 and 3. Looks like a typo. By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three options? 123. That is, you prefer a over b, and b over c. -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian. Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users? You can probably tell that I don't, and that's a big part of why I don't want non-free removed from ftp.debian.org yet. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at the source code for the chipset, and modify it, or possibly make sure there is not some unwanted trojan included there ? Although it's not important I will point out that the chipset isn't software but rather an ASIC, and modifying it is a bit more involved than recompiling! It does actually have source code but it's no more reasonable to demand the source code for your chipset than for your Pentium 4 or Athlon XP processor. But then you may think it's quite reasonable to demand the source code for both... Actually said source code would probably be quite useful from an educational POV. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, Actually, I think that only #1 is not trivial, in the case of reassigning bugs between main and non-free. Now personally, I don't believe that there are a lot of examples for this, but I don't have any data to back this up. I asked Colin Watson about this some days ago, and he said it would be rather difficult to get hard data on this. Personally I think split BTSs is reason enough not to split the distribution. [..] Now, ad 2.: That's pretty easy, just use the debian-keyring to authenticate and perhaps (but that's outside the scope of what debian.org can set as policy) also let identified people with a trustpath to a DD contribute, possibly requiring being recommended by an AM in the NM process. That's purely a social problem, the technology is there. ad 3.: You'd have a BTS for this, just as for the real Debian. However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might decide to install all their software in /opt. What about filename clashes between main and non-free.org packages? I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution. Well, *I* will definetely not upload non-free packages to ftp.debian.org, simply to prevent the strenghtening of it. While I'd Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though. Well, dunno. For me, removing non-free from ftp.debian.org is an ethical imperative I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, Actually, I think that only #1 is not trivial, in the case of reassigning bugs between main and non-free. Now personally, I don't believe that there are a lot of examples for this, but I don't have any data to back this up. I asked Colin Watson about this some days ago, and he said it would be rather difficult to get hard data on this. Personally I think split BTSs is reason enough not to split the distribution. [..] Now, ad 2.: That's pretty easy, just use the debian-keyring to authenticate and perhaps (but that's outside the scope of what debian.org can set as policy) also let identified people with a trustpath to a DD contribute, possibly requiring being recommended by an AM in the NM process. That's purely a social problem, the technology is there. ad 3.: You'd have a BTS for this, just as for the real Debian. However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might decide to install all their software in /opt. What about filename clashes between main and non-free.org packages? I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution. Well, *I* will definetely not upload non-free packages to ftp.debian.org, simply to prevent the strenghtening of it. While I'd Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though. Well, dunno. For me, removing non-free from ftp.debian.org is an ethical imperative I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:08:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:30:48PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote: The problem is not that user consider debian or not, it is that some of them need non-free. The question is not whether users need non-free or not, but whether they need non-free *to be on debian.org* or not. Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, etc. Some here claim that #1 is trivial to replicate. I'm not convinced about the other points though. I see other people such as David Schleef who are not registered developers volunteering to help. Additional developers, such as myself, would be willing to work on non-free packages, *provided that they are outside of Debian*. That's nice but we don't have any trust path to Dave or verification of his skills etc. Ultimately a separate non-free.org will not be as useful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:08:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:30:48PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote: The problem is not that user consider debian or not, it is that some of them need non-free. The question is not whether users need non-free or not, but whether they need non-free *to be on debian.org* or not. Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, etc. Some here claim that #1 is trivial to replicate. I'm not convinced about the other points though. I see other people such as David Schleef who are not registered developers volunteering to help. Additional developers, such as myself, would be willing to work on non-free packages, *provided that they are outside of Debian*. That's nice but we don't have any trust path to Dave or verification of his skills etc. Ultimately a separate non-free.org will not be as useful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:44:10PM +0200, Uri David Akavia wrote: Can ordinary Debian users vote as well, and if so, how? Please CC to me as well, since I am not on the list. No, only people with their GPG key in the Debian keyring can vote, which is just developers (and perhaps others?). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I propose that the Debian project resolve that: == Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages. == I'm a bit late, but I second this too. Thanks for proposing it Andrew. And thanks to Raul for his early proposals. (And sorry I dropped off the face of the list half way though.) Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I propose that the Debian project resolve that: == Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages. == I'm a bit late, but I second this too. Thanks for proposing it Andrew. And thanks to Raul for his early proposals. (And sorry I dropped off the face of the list half way though.) Err, and thanks to Aj too, which is what I really meant. Not sure how the above came out. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I've been asked to re-write my amendment which proposes to update the social contract, eliminating all independent issues - -- the idea being that this will be less confusing to voters. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01636.html Certainly a different approach, which I find fairly appealing. A few comments; Old: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software [...] New: 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free This is a bit longer than the original, but that's the cost of greater precision. I don't like Shall Continue, as it feels as though you have to know that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make sense. Would New: 1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free be equivalent? Old: We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. [...] New: We promise to keep the free software of the Debian System Distributions completely free. I assume that this is deliberately not New: We promise to keep the software of the Debian System Distributions completely free. (ie without the first free) because then we get into confusion about what is Debian and what isn't. (?) But then I feel a little like your new phrasing says nothing at all; what else would happen? And we couldn't change the license on most software even if the social contract allowed it, because we aren't the copyright holders. I propose we change the title of section 1 of the social contract, and the first sentence so they read: 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free I think this unfortunately ignores the issue of non-free documentation too, though I suppose that's a fault of the original which has been carried over. We don't make any committment not to keep non-free documentation out of main, only non-free software. Thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I've been asked to re-write my amendment which proposes to update the social contract, eliminating all independent issues - -- the idea being that this will be less confusing to voters. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01636.html Certainly a different approach, which I find fairly appealing. A few comments; Old: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software [...] New: 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free This is a bit longer than the original, but that's the cost of greater precision. I don't like Shall Continue, as it feels as though you have to know that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make sense. Would New: 1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free be equivalent? Old: We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. [...] New: We promise to keep the free software of the Debian System Distributions completely free. I assume that this is deliberately not New: We promise to keep the software of the Debian System Distributions completely free. (ie without the first free) because then we get into confusion about what is Debian and what isn't. (?) But then I feel a little like your new phrasing says nothing at all; what else would happen? And we couldn't change the license on most software even if the social contract allowed it, because we aren't the copyright holders. I propose we change the title of section 1 of the social contract, and the first sentence so they read: 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free I think this unfortunately ignores the issue of non-free documentation too, though I suppose that's a fault of the original which has been carried over. We don't make any committment not to keep non-free documentation out of main, only non-free software. Thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Bugs are things that break software, not arbitrary third-party specifications. We consider violations for the FHS to be be bugs. Why is that different? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Bugs are things that break software, not arbitrary third-party specifications. We consider violations for the FHS to be be bugs. Why is that different? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote: If one thinks forcing people to do things is evil, then forcing continuation of non-free is evil in one way. Continuing non-free does not require anyone to continue to work on it. Every who is working on non-free is doing it of their own free will. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
