Hi everyone!
John Hasler:
Note that the FSF publishes documentation that Debian considers
non-free.
Just out of curiosity: Which documentation are you referring to?
Florian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Lu, 16 mai 11, 09:40:51, Florian Snow wrote:
Hi everyone!
John Hasler:
Note that the FSF publishes documentation that Debian considers
non-free.
Just out of curiosity: Which documentation are you referring to?
For example the emacs docs that were mentioned recently in another
thread.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM, sdc asmosis.aste...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel) but
sdc writes:
My beginner question is, why doesn't Debian remove the [non-free]
software hosted on it's servers?
Because some of our users need it. While we make that stuff available,
we do not consider it part of Debian.
Don't they want to follow the FSF word?
No. Note that the FSF
On 05/15/2011 11:14 AM, John Hasler wrote:
sdc writes:
My beginner question is, why doesn't Debian remove the [non-free]
software hosted on it's servers?
Because some of our users need it. While we make that stuff available,
we do not consider it part of Debian.
Don't they want to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:10:08 +0300, sdc wrote in message
banlktikb0dbmlckyoph-wqu2gft+2oq...@mail.gmail.com:
By the way, is there an option to mark this mail as a
solved so others will (hopefully)not reply to it anymore?
..put [Solved] or some such on the Subject: line, like here.
--
..med
Now I understand. Thank you all who replied for being so helpful and taking
your time to explain this to me,
Hello sdc,
Am 2011-04-27 11:47:43, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel) but
still
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:02:03 +0200
Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net wrote:
Hello Michelle,
What is this crap about?
Read the thread!
--
Regards _
/ ) The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent
You suck my blood like a leech
Hello Brad Rogers,
Am 2011-04-29 16:09:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:02:03 +0200
Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net wrote:
Hello Michelle,
What is this crap about?
Read the thread!
contrib and non-free is nor considered as the Debian
Michelle Konzack, don't know why you are replying since the problem has been
solved. Read the thread, if you are looking for flame, flame elsewhere. By
the way, is there an option to mark this mail as a solved so others will
(hopefully)not reply to it anymore?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:07AM -0400, Mike Viau wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:50:07 -0400 kjetil1...@gmail.com wrote:
I ran this command on my laptop, and the returned list includes:
gdb-doc - The GNU Debugger Documentation
?Why the hell is gdb-doc not free?
I was
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel) but
still isn't free software because users have the option to install
proprietary
sdc:
My beginner question is, why doesn't Debian remove the proprietary software
hosted on it's servers?
Because Debian currently thinks keeping proprietary packages serves
their users better than removing the offending packages. Officially,
proprietary packages aren't part of Debian anyway
Dne, 27. 04. 2011 10:47:43 je sdc napisal(a):
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see
that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a
big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel)
but
still isn't free software
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 11:47:43, sdc wrote:
My beginner question is, why doesn't Debian remove the proprietary software
hosted on it's servers? Don't they want to follow the FSF word?
Read the Social Contract, especially points 4. and 5.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
Regards,
Andrei
--
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:03:41, Jochen Schulz wrote:
In short: no. Debian follows the DFSG, the FSF follows its own rules.
^^^
You probably meant the Social Contract here ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:09:56, Klistvud wrote:
Seems a quite reasonable policy to me. Of course, we all wish we
could run free software ponly on our machines, but the time doesn't
seem ripe for that.
But we are getting closer every year:
$ aptitude search '~snon-free|contrib~i!~M'
i
Andrei Popescu:
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:03:41, Jochen Schulz wrote:
In short: no. Debian follows the DFSG, the FSF follows its own rules.
^^^
You probably meant the Social Contract here ;)
I actually even wrote that but later on changed it to DFSG in order
Dne, 27. 04. 2011 12:36:03 je Andrei Popescu napisal(a):
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:09:56, Klistvud wrote:
Seems a quite reasonable policy to me. Of course, we all wish we
could run free software ponly on our machines, but the time doesn't
seem ripe for that.
But we are getting closer every year:
My list is rather ironic, no?
$ aptitude search '~snon-free|contrib~i!~M'
i bluez-firmware - Firmware for
Bluetooth devices
i emacs23-common-non-dfsg - GNU Emacs shared,
architecture independent, non-DFSG
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47:43AM CEST, sdc asmosis.aste...@gmail.com said:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Klistvud quotati...@aliceadsl.fr wrote:
Dne, 27. 04. 2011 12:36:03 je Andrei Popescu napisal(a):
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:09:56, Klistvud wrote:
Seems a quite reasonable policy to me. Of course, we all wish we
could run free software ponly on our machines, but
I ran this command on my laptop, and the returned list includes:
gdb-doc - The GNU Debugger Documentation
?Why the hell is gdb-doc not free?
Kjetil
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:36, Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:09:56, Klistvud
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:50:07 -0400 kjetil1...@gmail.com wrote:
I ran this command on my laptop, and the returned list includes:
gdb-doc - The GNU Debugger Documentation
?Why the hell is gdb-doc not free?
I was wondering the same thing about the gcc-doc package.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011
* On 2011 27 Apr 08:55 -0500, Mike Viau wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:50:07 -0400 kjetil1...@gmail.com wrote:
I ran this command on my laptop, and the returned list includes:
gdb-doc - The GNU Debugger Documentation
?Why the hell is gdb-doc not free?
I was wondering the same
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 09:02:38 Huang, Tao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Klistvud quotati...@aliceadsl.fr wrote:
Dne, 27. 04. 2011 12:36:03 je Andrei Popescu napisal(a):
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 12:09:56, Klistvud wrote:
Seems a quite reasonable policy to me. Of course, we all wish
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:47:43 +0300, sdc wrote:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software.
^^^
Uh? How is that?
***
What Does Free Mean? or What do you mean by Free Software?
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2011 27 Apr 08:55 -0500, Mike Viau wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:50:07 -0400 kjetil1...@gmail.com wrote:
I ran this command on my laptop, and the returned list includes:
gdb-doc - The GNU Debugger Documentation
?Why the hell is gdb-doc not free?
I was wondering
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 08:58:49, Nate Bargmann wrote:
Some searches of the Web will reveal the complete back story. The short
story is that the GNU Free Document License (GFDL) allows invariant
sections in a document which violates the DFSG.
Just to clarify a bit for the archives: the fact that
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 10:11:28, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
Thank you for the hint. I tried Liberation sans instead of Arial. It
is not the same.
AFAIU it is not meant to be the same (it couldn't anyway, due to
licensing issues), but with the same *metrics*. If I understand this
right, it would mean
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 11:56:30 Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Mi, 27 apr 11, 10:11:28, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
Thank you for the hint. I tried Liberation sans instead of Arial. It
is not the same.
AFAIU it is not meant to be the same (it couldn't anyway, due to
licensing issues)
Yep, sure,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:47:43AM +0300, sdc wrote:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
progress(this happened when they removed the blobs from the kernel) but
still isn't free
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, sdc wrote:
Greetings, I was reading FSF distro review and I was shocked to see that
Debian isn't actually free software. FSF said that they are making a big
Don't be. We don't think FSF always provides free software either: we
consider documentation as part of the software
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
Non ASCII fonts with diacritical signs do not render correctly on-
screen.
Do you mean characters? I'm guessing a bug report would be appreciated
if you can reproduce the issue.
Yes, non ASCII characters - sorry.
...
I'll file a bug
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 15:50:17 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
Non ASCII fonts with diacritical signs do not render correctly on-
screen.
Do you mean characters? I'm guessing a bug report would be appreciated
if you can reproduce
36 matches
Mail list logo
