Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

2004-03-13 Thread John Lines
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we need GNU FDL. # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package: glibc;

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

2004-01-22 Thread John Lines
re-badge it as fsf-linux. This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst others. There may be cases where debian regards

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

2004-01-22 Thread John Lines
re-badge it as fsf-linux. This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst others. There may be cases where debian regards

Re: non-free and users?

2004-01-15 Thread John Lines
This mean that efforts should be concentrated on creating free replacements. Those who really need non-free will probably not choose Debian anyway. Other distributions (like Suse, Red Hat) provide a lot of non-free already intergrated in their distributions. For an organisation

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

2004-01-12 Thread John Lines
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ? That would be misleading I think. Why not add it to the copyright filer proper? Michael I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the copyright in a separate file, for two reasons 1) ease of machine

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

2004-01-12 Thread John Lines
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ? That would be misleading I think. Why not add it to the copyright filer proper? Michael I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the copyright in a separate file, for two reasons 1) ease of machine

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

2004-01-10 Thread John Lines
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

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

2004-01-10 Thread John Lines
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

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

2003-12-27 Thread John Lines
If that's the worst problem that is only solved by non-free, I'd say we're doing pretty well. I suspect the potential complete removal of GDFL documentation from the distribution is probably a worse problem. There are also the programs, like povray - which are 'too free' in that they can

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

2003-12-27 Thread John Lines
If that's the worst problem that is only solved by non-free, I'd say we're doing pretty well. I suspect the potential complete removal of GDFL documentation from the distribution is probably a worse problem. There are also the programs, like povray - which are 'too free' in that they can