On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
affected and it's a major PITA to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines.
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR action.
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least as
robust as Debian's, should you convince them they ought.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Andrew Suffield
---8---
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
non-free section. Clause 5 of the
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 releases of the non-free
section. The Debian
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
[...]
If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such an archive.
If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian project will
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:03:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this
in non-free?
This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is formally an amendment to the
resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
in the sense of deleting all text other than I propose the following
resolution: and replacing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
As promised, i fill here a ammendment (or should it be called a
counter-proposal) to the remove non-free proposal. This can be seen as a
middle point between the two possibilities of the vote which were either keep
non-free and continue as
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this proposal, and
to help me making the necessary word changes that may be necessary.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This is formally an amendment to the
|resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
|(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
|in the sense of deleting all text other than I propose the following
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
* Raul Miller
| Also, since my pgp key is so ancient people with recently installed
| systems probably won't be able to verify it, and since I haven't submitted
| my new gpg key yet, could someone who can verify my signature please post
| a signed statement to the list indicating whether or not
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 02:03:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this proposal,
and to help
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I would like to propose changes s/non-free/semi-free/g for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization s/non-free/semi-free/g to remove non-free from Debian.
At first glance, that's a
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
What about the Hurd
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, you say :
Additionally, we will work to provide free alternatives to
non-free software so people who using only free software can work
with users of non-free software.
Which means moslty the same
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
spurious here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
own guidelines the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes Linux from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called non-free in
Debian, the Free Software Organization. At the same time, I understand the
practical benefits of the continuation of archive contents now called
non-free.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
you evidently are.
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:52:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
alternatives could well not
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
+Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
+free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
+authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
propose a version which
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:06:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes Linux from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
propose a version
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
alternatives could well not be packaged (yet). But on the same time, my
proposal
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes sometimes
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be programs and other software. Software is
entire text of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than non-free or not. To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
affected and it's a major PITA to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines.
On 2004-01-10 15:26:23 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
have created contrib
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 releases of the non-free
section. The Debian
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian project will
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:57:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If we're amending the social contract and keeping non-free, I think we should
amend:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
software.
Good
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
non-free section. Clause 5 of the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such an archive.
If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
[...]
If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:05:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It would have been helpful to describe your changes.
Ok.
Are DFSG 7 and 9 also required for entry into non-free?
Good point.
I oppose this proposal because it increases confusion about what is
part of the distribution and increases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Andrew Suffield
---8---
The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
section. The Debian
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such
Hi,
I would like to propose changes s/non-free/semi-free/g for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization s/non-free/semi-free/g to remove non-free from Debian.
Here is my rationale:
Whereas in the previous discussion on this removal of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this
proposal, and to help me making the necessary word changes that may be
necessary.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
This is a somewhat detailed description of the changes I'm proposing.
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
There were two sentences here, in my proposal there are three.
I changed the first sentence so the point of entirely free software
was clear, and to not contradict the constitution,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
As promised, i fill here a ammendment (or should it be called a
counter-proposal) to the remove non-free proposal. This can be seen as a
middle point between the two possibilities of the vote which were either keep
non-free and continue as
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least as
robust as Debian's, should you convince them they ought.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
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,
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:03:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This is formally an amendment to the
|resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
|(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
|in the sense of deleting all text other than I propose the following
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes Linux from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
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
* Raul Miller
| Also, since my pgp key is so ancient people with recently installed
| systems probably won't be able to verify it, and since I haven't submitted
| my new gpg key yet, could someone who can verify my signature please post
| a signed statement to the list indicating whether or not
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
spurious here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, you say :
Additionally, we will work to provide free alternatives to
non-free software so people who using only free software can work
with users of non-free software.
Which means moslty the same
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
What about the Hurd
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called non-free in
Debian, the Free Software Organization. At the same time, I understand the
practical benefits of the continuation of archive contents now called
non-free.
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
you evidently are.
Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
own guidelines the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
I would like to propose changes s/non-free/semi-free/g for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization s/non-free/semi-free/g to remove non-free from Debian.
At first glance, that's a
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is
this
in non-free?
This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 02:03:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which
are
interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this
proposal, and to
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
+Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
+free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
+authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
entire text of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than non-free or not. To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:06:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes Linux from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is formally an amendment to the
resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
in the sense of deleting all text other than I propose the following
resolution: and replacing
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
propose a version which
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes
96 matches
Mail list logo
