Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:20:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Indeed, one of the faculty here at UCI, Aldo Antonelli is a die-hard
member of the Free Software community. When I told him about Debian's
commitment to the principles free
Am 02:12 2002-11-25 -0800 hat Adam McKenna geschrieben:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free
and contrib if I burn CD's for some
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:21:41PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
I think, supporting (distributing) of non-free ist waste of bandwidth
and money... and the same for contrib...
i think the bandwidth taken and disk space taken up by non-free is
exceptionally small compared to main. i haven't
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:27:22PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:20:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's a recursive definition. The way things are now is our current
social contract, so you are saying The way things are now is consistent
with the way things are
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ahh but John is not working in the interests of our users but rather a
higher body known as the Free Software Community. It is not known
whether any actual Debian user is a member of that group at this time
(the answer to THAT question when asked was
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the
desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the
motivation). Is this your position?
There is
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:20:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Indeed, one of the faculty here at UCI, Aldo Antonelli is a die-hard
member of the Free Software community. When I told him about Debian's
commitment to the principles free software he immediately decided to
switch his
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:22:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:30:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:47:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
This certainly flies in the face of the common argument that Free
Software only chases
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free
and contrib if I burn CD's for some one...
An important data point, I'd think...
Yes,
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than
preserving the status quo?
Thanks for clarifying that.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:12:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:34:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
But I do not use contrib or non-free. Nobody had ask for non-free
and contrib if I burn CD's
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other than
preserving the status quo?
Thanks for clarifying that.
Your wit is razor sharp as usual,
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Why does the GR-opposition party need to stand for anything, other
than
preserving the status
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:19:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Why does the GR-opposition party
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that.
Your wit is razor sharp as usual, Branden. What you seem to be implying is
that there is something wrong with the desire to preserve the way things
are now (regardless of the motivation). Is this
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Perhaps some of us feel that The Way Things Are Now is consistent with our
Social Contract and our list of committments, and changing that would be
violating that Contract and those committments.
That's a recursive definition. The
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:20:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Perhaps some of us feel that The Way Things Are Now is consistent with
our
Social Contract and our list of committments, and changing that would be
violating that
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:27:22PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
I'm aware that the definition is somewhat tautological. But my opinion
remains that our users are currently better served by the status quo than
what you are proposing.
Do you consider the status quo to be the ideal situation? If
Branden Robinson writes (Re: Discussion - non-free software removal):
While we're on the subject, can you tell us whether or not the Social
Contract was specifically one of the documents you had in mind when you
wrote clause 4.1.5 of the Debian Constituion? Could you answer the same
question
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:36:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Because, at the time that we wrote it, non-free (in particular:
PGP, ssh, Netscape, IIRC) was a much more important part of Debian than
it is now. Those three sets of packages went from
How did this killing happen? Certainly not by denying them space on
Debian's servers. In fact, Mozilla killed Netscape because Netscape,
Poor John Galt is fooled by Branden into thinking that Netscape is
dead.
21 matches
Mail list logo
