On December 7, 2019 7:26:14 PM UTC, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
>If we succeed at protecting init.d scripts, it will be feasible to
>develop support for other init systems gradually, package after
>package.
>
>Should we fail, introduction of new init system will require either
>introduction of
On November 30, 2019 10:32:11 PM UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>I have removed the proposal from the page. I'm not sure that is the
>best thing to do.
I think it'd be a little clearer to replace its title and text with
"(withdrawn)" or similar, then it'll be clear the missing letter is not a
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The point of the exercise is to avoid having so many organizations and
so many bank accounts that we would need three professional accountants
just to keep track. Perhaps I should have worded it as 'no more than one
such organization shall be active per country'; [...]
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the result to GR 2006-001, the following modifications will be
made to the Debian Free Software Guidelines:
Let's not make a bad situation worse. These two modifications would, I
think, open a large enough hole in the DFSG to drive a MS EULA through.
At
martin f krafft wrote:
True. But I, for one, have my MUA set to honour M-F-T before R-T
though.
Doesn't 'r' use reply-to and 'L' use Mail-Followup-To?
[headers indicate he's using Mutt]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections
present
All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least:
* [4D, 4E] Copyright statements
* [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled History
* [4F] The permission notice, which
Craig Sanders wrote:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the
permission of the copyright holder. In some countries
Craig Sanders wrote:
stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't.
[snip]
it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a
foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY
IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.
Craig Sanders wrote:
the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
No, it does not.
Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
of patch files with the
Craig Sanders wrote:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the
that modified
version to my neighbor.
[0] Anthony DeRobertis, A new practical problem with invariant
sections?. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00568.html
Anton Zinoviev
[*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html
Craig Sanders wrote:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example
you are welcome to share it with us. :-)
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Let's assume a manual, written by
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
I'm not convinced the
Christopher Martin wrote:
Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
there was no inconsistency.
If a simple majority can yell, there is no inconsistency then the 3:1
requirement has
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further
distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is
compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also
distributable
without restriction (and more). If this was
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the
licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free
on their CDs?
DVDs are the most obvious answer.
Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free.
Alongside it sit several shareware
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further
distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is
compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also
distributable
without restriction (and more). If this
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the
licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free
on their CDs?
DVDs are the most obvious answer.
Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free.
Alongside it sit several
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield's GR, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what 100% free means without the
word
software. Free software is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word internet (Raul: isn't
Internet capitalized?).
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
only a noun. So, the most correct may be Internet-connected
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
but not all is extraneous fluff.
In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the
needs of many users. This is important because of the current
controversy
over
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield's GR, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what 100% free means without the
word
software. Free software is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word internet (Raul: isn't
Internet capitalized?).
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
but not all is extraneous fluff.
In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the
needs of many users. This is important because of the current
controversy
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations, but we have no free
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will
On Jan 18, 2004, at 21:59, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a
package name registry, for example.
Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though?
I don't think so
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
(because we were no longer able).
we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
GFDL like package for example).
I
On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation.
Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus can't
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we
On Jan 18, 2004, at 21:59, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a
package name registry, for example.
Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though?
I don't
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
(because we were no longer able).
we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
GFDL like package for example
On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation.
Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Yes:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Perhaps some of this value is pure
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
be ethical to reject a
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
Raul.
I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer:
If I
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No it wouldn't. Nothing
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Yes:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Perhaps some of this value is pure
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
be ethical to reject a
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
Raul.
I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer:
If I
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No it wouldn't
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted to
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say Software that doesn't instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is documentation.
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say Software that doesn't instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split, updating the
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote:
I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal?
I believe that is the plan.
If
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian's Social Contract with its Users
Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
software community; see 4.
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split,
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt
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 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
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.
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
[ I've taken the liberty of cc'ing debian-legal, where license issues
are discussed. -legal readers probably want to drop -vote. Reply-to
set. ]
On Jan 10, 2004, at 02:57, Craig Sanders wrote:
X3270
-
x3270 seems to be free. IMO, maintainer is overly cautious
about
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well as
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not
resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they would not be
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote:
I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and
thus the it you would have us vote on would not resolve anything.
If it turns out that a supermajority of Debian's developers do not
believe Debian should distribute non-free, then
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote:
I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and
thus the it you would have us vote on would not resolve anything.
If it turns out that a supermajority of Debian's developers do not
believe Debian should distribute non-free,
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not
resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they would
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Prove that it isn't.
It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate
his assumptions.
--
To
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Prove that it isn't.
It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate
his assumptions.
On Jan 6, 2004, at 08:00, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
is based on the assumption that non-free is important
On Jan 5, 2004, at 07:10, MJ Ray wrote:
Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian,
especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical
distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package
metadata should include info for reportbug-type
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
the resolution but disagree with the rationale.
Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future.
I encourage anyone who
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
mozilla based browser.
... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
mozilla based browser.
... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
PROPOSAL 1
-
Whereas,
the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
many
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote:
Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun
implementation,
and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them.
That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to
Debian. Having them in main could encourage people to
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
Thanks
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century
government?
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
So... back to the point at hand: a vote about non-free won't answer
the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
address the issues people have about non-free.
Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on the
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
PROPOSAL 1
-
Whereas,
the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote:
Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun
implementation,
and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them.
That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to
Debian. Having them in main could encourage
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free
On Jan 3, 2004, at 18:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will
still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3
years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for
their non-free packages.
harumph So the
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
Here are some, with references:
golden
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century
government?
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
So... back to the point at hand: a vote about non-free won't answer
the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
address the issues people have about non-free.
Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on the
On Jan 2, 2004, at 01:38, Craig Sanders wrote:
I second this, with the following amendment:
s/this/Craig Sanders/
ObVote: no, I don't really second cas's suggestion
i'm sorry, i forgot to say NOT
any form of sarcasm or irony without such a subtle-as-a-sledgehammer
hint is
obviously beyond
On Jan 2, 2004, at 01:38, Craig Sanders wrote:
I second this, with the following amendment:
s/this/Craig Sanders/
ObVote: no, I don't really second cas's suggestion
i'm sorry, i forgot to say NOT
any form of sarcasm or irony without such a subtle-as-a-sledgehammer
hint is
obviously
On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
mean losing much of the current Java support.
I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
