On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
He speaks the truth.
Removing non-free would probably cause some serious migration of
users.
I'm not really sure where I stand on this whole issue (not that it
really matters), but why would people migrate? How much non-Free
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:48:50PM -0500, Tim St. Croix wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:26:46 -0700 (MST), you wrote:
HP just kinda sprung to mind as a Debian friendly entity
Oh how I wish that were true! I'd be able to get my HP 3400C scanner
working. If HP were truly Debian (or even
On 16 Nov 2002, John Hasler wrote:
Bruce writes:
If I was a company I would certainly be hesitant to do anything with
Debian because it seems to have a problem with people making money off
software.
Baffle. One of the most common reasons for packages to be in non-free is
that their
--- Mark L. Kahnt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 00:50, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
snip
My outlook largely is coincident with Rob on this one - my vrms
listing
mentions primarily RFCs and W3C recommendations, typefaces, a few
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:27:04PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
provide specs to Bertrik Sikken ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who's trying to
write the SANE backend for it.
THe last time I tried using the drivers for the hp PSC 750 scanner - it
was broken - anyone get scanning to work on the PSC 750 on
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 22:44, Shawn Lamson wrote:
--- Mark L. Kahnt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 00:50, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:54AM -0500, Tom Allison wrote:
snip
My outlook largely is coincident with Rob on this one - my vrms
listing
mentions
Brian White wrote:
Dropping non-free would not help Debian. Most users and few companies
are really concerned with the copyright on the packages they use as
long as they get the job done. If you remove those things from Debian,
then those users will soon go to a distribution that gives them
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Nicolaus Kedegren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:36:48AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
I think a much better solution would be for Debian to find a
multi-national commercial partner to take over non-free before it
gets dumped... maybe HP.
This is a typical _drone_
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 04:03:21PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
If I was a company I would certainly be hesitant to do anything with
Debian because it seems to have a problem with people making money off
software.
If we had a problem with people making money off software, I rather
doubt that
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:26:46 -0700 (MST), you wrote:
HP just kinda sprung to mind as a Debian friendly entity
Oh how I wish that were true! I'd be able to get my HP 3400C scanner
working. If HP were truly Debian (or even just Linux) friendly they'd
provide specs to Bertrik Sikken ([EMAIL
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:25:22AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
If we had a problem with people making money off software, I rather
doubt that Progeny, to name but one, would exist.
Much less headed by one of our own...
--
.''`. Baloo Ursidae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :proud Debian admin
Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
the following draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution
process to decide this issue.
i do NOT second this proposal.
if, however, it
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:22:40 -0500
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the
guidelines offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I
hereby offer the following draft proposal as the beginning of a
General Resolution
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0200, Klaus Imgrund wrote:
why do people that don't want non-free .deb's just remove it from
their sources line?
Amen.
Where is the original of this posting? All I can find on the
debian-user archives is the two responses.
The original proposer makes the point
Steve Juranich wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:14 -0200, Klaus Imgrund wrote:
why do people that don't want non-free .deb's just remove it from
their sources line?
Amen.
Where is the original of this posting? All I can find on the
debian-user archives is the two responses.
There is a
Steve Juranich writes:
I think that there are a lot more things that Debian developers
should/could be working on before we start going on some witch hunt
because somebody had the audacity to use a license other than GPL.
DFSG-compliant != GPL
Read the DFSG, a few dozen package licenses, and
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Steve Juranich wrote:
Believe it or not, that previous paragraph had a point. I think that
there are a lot more things that Debian developers should/could be
working on before we start going on some witch hunt because somebody had
the audacity to use
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Travis Crump wrote:
...
There is a long long ongoing debate in debian-devel[1] on this. Please
don't start another debate here.
This seems like the proper place for a discussion, they are wanting to
change the Social Contract, and we are the society they have the
contract
If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free, uninstall X and get
back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
Regards, Dean.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 + Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---BeginMessage---
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:50:33AM -0800, Steve
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 +, Colin Watson wrote:
cat /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt, please. This is just
FUD.
Okay, allow me to take a step back from my original message.
First of all, I love Debian GNU/Linux. I have absolutely no problem
with the way that the distribution
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free,
uninstall X and get back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
Can you bloody well read what I wrote, please? BSD, MIT, and XFree86 are
all free.
--
Colin
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:36:48 -0700
Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Travis Crump wrote:
...
There is a long long ongoing debate in debian-devel[1] on this.
Please don't start another debate here.
This seems like the proper place for a discussion, they are wanting
I was being bitterly ironic, honestly if you dont ;) every sentence these days, almost
as bad as Rik Van Riel behaves...
Regards, Dean.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:16:55 + Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---BeginMessage---
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce writes:
I'm worried that if Debian totally ignores the non-free software world,
it will ignore Debian.
Do you understand what the non-free archive is?
I think a much better solution would be for Debian to find a
multi-national commercial partner to take over non-free...
Why would such
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:12:27PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think BSD is non free, then the MIT license is non free,
uninstall X and get back to your console, while the rest of us use it.
Can you bloody well read what I wrote, please? BSD,
Brian Nelson wrote:
Not to promote the spread of FUD, but interestingly it has come up
recently on debian-legal that the MIT/X11 license could possibly be
interpreted as non-free:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00164.html
No, the referenced thread merely
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:08:22AM -0800, Steve Juranich wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:21:50 +, Colin Watson wrote:
cat /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt, please. This is just
FUD.
Okay, allow me to take a step back from my original message.
First of all, I love Debian
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:05:06AM -0600, Nicolaus Kedegren wrote:
Just to give my 2cents worth, this is exactly my worry, that one of the
last few bastions of *free* software will cave in to weak users
and a nasty general attitude. Being free does not mean that everything
is easy, it means
28 matches
Mail list logo
