so, what exactly is in non-free?
some people expressed doubt about the claims i made regarding the actual
contents of non-free. i said that very few packages were proprietary, that
almost all were 'almost-free' (aka 'semi-free').
since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:52:16 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion, good
enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is worth
little.
It is
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:16:48 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If
forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the
constitution?
If you mean dropping
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:06 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of
work, and I am not going to
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:12:34 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry, insincere ballot options doesn't parse. Insincere
voting refers to the process of
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself. a
classification of
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
for tome is like saying that
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Has someone
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
non-free from debian
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
Because I somehow doubt that
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
less appealing by
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Could you please explain how you reconcile restricting our users'
freedoms is wrong with a proposal that would reduce our users'
ability to choose non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:43:28AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
which are really about bugs in upstream software.
I don't see what's so difficult
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
I think that's a hasty conclusion. I think the fact that no
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been
taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to
users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a
way that its easy for users
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 07:57:09 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you want to check the licenses yourself, email me and i can send
you a
300KB
file containing just the copyright files. it's too big to attach to
a mailing
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
Not at the level of main.
At what level *do* we provide it?
However, we can be fairly confident that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It would be interesting to split into classes no commercial, no
modification, patent, compatibility, notification and other
at first glance.
Yes, if somebody could do this, this would be very valuable.
Another thing I think is
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Dale Martin wrote:]
The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see
below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called
the DFSG,
I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with
me, please at least argue with what I actually stated.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:22:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook.
Actually talking about the topic at hand is
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't
turn a useful
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free,
per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users
whether they think
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over
in the last few months, and it's getting old.
I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS,
at least.
I think Debian should
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR.
--
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be affected
by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
Speaking for myself, dealing with a separate non-free archive would
mean:
1. Uploading to a
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them,
for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in
lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions.
I'll explain more below.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the cutting.
Yes, and making a resolution
On 2004-01-10 12:41:48 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It would be interesting to split into classes no commercial, no
modification, patent, compatibility, notification and other
at
first glance.
what is compatibility for ?
Packages that you are allowed to modify, distribute or
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your definition of a problem?
On Thu, Jan
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:55:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
[For the W3C docs, for example, there is no reason except convenience
why they would _have_ to be served from .debian.org - could we get them
to host the .debs of their own documentation? ]
The problem with third party
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
Rather than nitpick the quoting, attributions, and logical flow of
past arguments I will share my current thoughts on this issue:
1) The DFSG spells out what the Debian project considers free software.
2) The first clause of the social contract says We promise to keep the
Debian GNU/Linux
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
Craig,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
some people expressed doubt about the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:27:09AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be affected
by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
But most importantly, to
Hi,
Craig Sanders wrote:
sl-modem-daemon looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
why is this in non-free?
sl-modem-source looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
why is this in non-free?
Parts of it are binary-only
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the
market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when
this is all moot anyway).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:30:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
You appear to have stated that you do not care to discuss the merits of
your proposal,
This is accurate, from a certain perspective. I'm not interested in
discussing the y/n part of Drop non-free? [y/n].
I've been discussing the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what
this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded. The wording still
leaves open the question of whether we have created [sections on
our ftp site] means
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
Constitution.
(arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
another year or so ?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
***much*** simpler.
As you point out earlier in your email,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i
don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
molphy very simple license says it is free software. fails to have
an explicit clause allowing modification. clarification
would be good, but IMO there is no compelling reason why
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
and I am not going to insist on
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it
It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all,
by mistake.
Needs verifying. The description says: Due to license considerations,
this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to build
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that
because
of the name non-free?
Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
non-free removal GR draft?
Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:08:50PM +, John Lines wrote:
It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all,
by mistake.
Needs verifying. The description says: Due to license considerations,
this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
that means i may not have noted down all the reasons why a particular
package
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
writing is not of the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
encountered nothing but flamewar,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:49:36PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
I can go one better. Include
[This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
with some extra text surrounding it]
It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
and/or understand my proposal. For reference, here it is (as it
currently stands) repeated:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 07:57:09 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you want to check the licenses yourself, email me and i can send you a
300KB file containing just the copyright files. it's too big to attach to a
mailing list.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
with some extra text surrounding it]
Thanks Andrew for doing this.
It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
and/or understand my
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
We probably don't have the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:17:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], namely to leave the actual
packages on our servers for a while, but only accessible
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:21, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all
the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence
becomes a composite of the GPL and his additional
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
---8---
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
lower quality that non-free
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do
anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them.
FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run
the program (ie,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software.
Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that:
So the only important question is: do you want to work
on a free distribution or a
so, what exactly is in non-free?
some people expressed doubt about the claims i made regarding the actual
contents of non-free. i said that very few packages were proprietary, that
almost all were 'almost-free' (aka 'semi-free').
since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:16:48 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If
forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the
constitution?
If you mean dropping
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It hasn't even done that; as I have had to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
less appealing by
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself. a
classification of
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
for tome is like saying that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:12:34 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry, insincere ballot options doesn't parse. Insincere
voting refers to the process of
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:52:16 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion, good
enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is worth
little.
It is
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
He didn't speak as Secretary,
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Has someone
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
I confess I have to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Could you please explain how you reconcile restricting our users'
freedoms is wrong with a proposal that would reduce our users'
ability to choose non-free
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't
turn a useful
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
since no-one else has
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:43:28AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
We probably don't have the legal right to distribute that one. The Knuth
license
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
