Ian Jackson wrote:
If this is forced to a GR we should have an option along these
lines:
We note that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only
under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation of derivative
license texts.
We do not consider this a problem.
Although not my
Don Armstrong wrote:
I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
may be worth some thought.
Unfortunatly, the currently proposed
: The most vital of these works are included in
Debian, but we strive to replace all of them with free works. For the
remaining
works, we have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive.'
--
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
-- President
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
MJ Ray wrote:
Most? I thought most licence
This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by inserting at the end of clause 3, in italics:
(There is a special
I wrote:
Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most
discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If that is the case, then why would it be necessary to write this down
in the DFSG? Personally, I don't think we need to
the requirement for sources.
Yep.
Since i am seen as not trusthy to analyze such problems, i think to
deblock this situation, it would be best to have a statement from
debian-legal to back those claims (or to claim i am wrong in the above).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything I say
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition
of distributable. The usual definition used by debian-legal is We have
explicit legal
.
Anyone know where it is?
Maximizing the number of systems which can be supported with the
standard d-i image plus an additional disk/net repo/etc is still a good
idea, which is why I'm working on it, and it's 90% done already.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA
. I suggest the following
amendment to Ian:
Replace clause 2 of third resolution with:
2. The Project as a whole chooses not to express any further opinion on
dunc-tank at this time. This constitutes neither approval nor
disapproval.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush
, you can do the second without the first -- and you can do
the first without the second.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
about the process, a secretary without
a brain can't count the seconds as belonging to the same proposal.
How about a secretary with *half* a brain? :-)
manoj
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he
.
They are normally part of the stuff. A preamble to a book is almost always
part of the book. Preamble is almost a synonym for introduction
or foreword.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
true, as noted: they look at the main text first, but if there's
an ambiguity, they will look at the preamble.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
think they'll all agree to do it voluntarily though. :-) So don't worry
about whether it's an obstacle unless someone refuses.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
to the
resolutions, [...], implying that preambles are not part of the
resolution and are not votable.
I am going to reinstate that paragraph, for it is certainly
true.
Actually, it's certainly false, as Branden Robinson has explained
with Supreme Court citations.
--
Nathanael Nerode
they themselves
presented.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are willing to send a few emails. Yes, indeed,
we depend on that.
Manoj, you're making mountains out of molehills.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
Hi,
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us.
Thanks for going through this. I know you had to as secretary, but it
must have sucked.
--
Nathanael
stuff? Quack, Quack? looks confused
I have a wild turkey living in my front yard, but no ducks.
DPL recall, assorted GRs for various stuff).
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to more appropriate lists. I really
don't know what's most appropriate, so I'm responding where I read it.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
, definitely adds emotive content for no good reason.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
members of the
QL2xxx family.
The firmware blobs are deprecated in 2.6.17 and have been removed in
2.6.18-rc. You already need the non-free package containing the
firmwares to run these controllers with 2.6.17 and later, no need to
remove the drivers.
Rocking.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL
out what
this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals?
It was pretty clear, but Amend the Constitution (assets handling) would
have been better. Just in case someone mixed this up with some other
constitutional amendment.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating
really *like* the hypocrisy:
such a person would want to keep non-free firmware in main but would not
want the Social Contract to say so. I hope there are no such people but
sometimes I fear that there are.)
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud
you wrote this, you were clearly not fully aware of the situation, so
please try again.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
.
Sounds great. It still has very little effect as long as we have no
official position on the distribution of *mislicensed* code. But it
sounds great.
I'd second, but I'm waiting for DAM approval.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush
. MJ, are you OK with taking lead on
this?
AJ, I presume you will have no problem doing this if this really was a
matter of miscommunication. Sorry I'm so irritable.
Oh. Please feel free to forward my comments to the SPI lawyer, too.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Actually, this is what is wrong with the polls at the debian user forums
which AJ pointed people to. Etch can release on time either free (with
less hardware support) or non-free (with more hardware
Diverting to -legal.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yeah, that is something which is needed. We need someone to go over
larry's list, which i have copiedto the debian wiki, and find out who
the copyright holder
, except for the
misleading prologue.
on behalf of the kernel- and release team
Frederik Schueler
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
is (a) not getting sued and
protecting downstream from liability, (b) clearly respecting copyright
holders and respecting their stated desires.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
: the installation CDs only
get used the once, and the material would be clearly separated out into the
non-free section during and after installation.
Doesn't address the legal issue of whether material without a proper
distribution license should be included.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED
from Nathanael Nerode and other people who worked
hard so far to remove the non-free blobs,
Actually, the only thing which seriously discouraged me was when Debian
reverted the patch to convert tg3 to firmware loading and resumed shipping
the BLOBs. I understand why it was done (the loadable
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
right now, because it determines whether Debian will distribute
and the other parts of the kernel. Simply putting files side by side is
mere aggregation -- what's happening with the drivers and firmware might be
mere aggregation, but nobody can be sure until a court case happens.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said
this
compromise.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:47:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer will give you all the links
you want, but for the lazy :
svn://svn.debian.org/svn/d-i/trunk/packages/anna
Thank you very much.
Oddly, finding the d-i repo
loading are a pretty small group. But it would be nice to make it work for
them.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
We are getting way off topic for -vote.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
They are the team responsible for vetting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Poole wrote:
I'm not going to argue with your previous points, which are all
basically accurate.
Related to (a), current programmable hardware cannot run *any* CPU at
speeds that most users would accept for desktop use. However, solving
the original companies, and then I'd have a
real case for a lawsuit.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
).
In contrast, clause 4 of Steve Langasek's proposal is a backhanded and
not very forthright way of trying to change the DFSG without changing them.
Steve, you're better than this: please fix your proposal to do the
straightforward thing.
manoj
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED
of work is what I'm especially good at. I could
start an alioth project for keyring-manangement-scripts if anyone else is
interested in working on this.
Hmm, this is going off topic for -vote Replies to -devel please.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure your vote will count.
http
the GFDL on a work in a
literalistic way which includes all the restrictions we find unacceptable,
Debian *will* remove that work. Which is what really matters. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
, though I don't agree with it.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.) --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact
that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two
positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato?
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left
, then? :-(
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
similar this situation is to the GFDL's DRM clause and
opaque/transparent clauses, which clearly do not say what the author meant.
Those exact clauses where this GR is proposing to allow works under them into
Debian. Interesting, eh?
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's just a goddamned
, then it is
*agreeing* with the FSF. On that one point.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
-- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
of the Rights of Man. Good thing the Declaration of Independence
was freely licensed.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.) --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html
Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
won, it would be exactly the same as if the no GFDL in main at all
proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is to explain
to restrict modification.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it
as a bug)?
Yes.
or just to the copies you distribute...
No.
I mean, I know the license says the copies you make or distribute,
but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?
No. And there's the problem with this clause, in a nutshell.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED
who have actually bothered to take a close
look at the license agree on. I'm still in NM, so I request that some DD
propose this.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.) --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org
Ian Jackson wrote:
Also,
(4) How can this be fixed?
This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
DFSG, which states:
Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:01:29AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
In contrast, having the possibilty to modify $APPLICATION's stock
'File-Open' icon in its native form, i.e. gimp layers or whatever
seems to be of less importance by several orders
Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, rip it to shreds.
Thank you for making such a proposal. If I were a DD, I would second it to
get it on the ballot -- because I think it's a clear proposal worth voting
on -- and then I would vote against it because I think it's the wrong way
to go. :-)
--
There are
Michael Banck wrote:
Having the full source code (and not something obfuscted beyond
recognition) for a computer program so we are able to fix bugs and, if
necessary, fork it, seems to be essential to what we're doing, namely
providing the world with a operating system that rocks (and is
Michael Banck wrote:
However, it is very hard to determine and carve in stone the 'point of
no return' for a release, especially as we are still experimenting with
the way we do releases. But I guess we could have the release manager
officially declare a point somewhere in the middle of the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, I have nothing but proprietary hardware. Never had any
non-proprietary Hardware. most people don't. Indeed, is there such
a thing as non-proprietary hardware?
Yes. It's not at *all* common, but if you have completely freely
implementable/modifiable specs for
Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, rip it to shreds.
Thank you for making such a proposal. If I were a DD, I would second it to
get it on the ballot -- because I think it's a clear proposal worth voting
on -- and then I would vote against it because I think it's the wrong way
to go. :-)
--
There are
Michael Banck wrote:
Having the full source code (and not something obfuscted beyond
recognition) for a computer program so we are able to fix bugs and, if
necessary, fork it, seems to be essential to what we're doing, namely
providing the world with a operating system that rocks (and is
Michael Banck wrote:
However, it is very hard to determine and carve in stone the 'point of
no return' for a release, especially as we are still experimenting with
the way we do releases. But I guess we could have the release manager
officially declare a point somewhere in the middle of the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, I have nothing but proprietary hardware. Never had any
non-proprietary Hardware. most people don't. Indeed, is there such
a thing as non-proprietary hardware?
Yes. It's not at *all* common, but if you have completely freely
implementable/modifiable specs for
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in
much doubt on it
where's
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in
much doubt on it
where's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|Craig Sanders wrote:
|
|
|On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|Craig Sanders wrote:
|
|
|On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|This would clarify the main point that has been spawning
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into main.
what endless attempts would these be? have there been any
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into main.
what endless attempts would these be? have there been any
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
amount of time on this in debian-legal
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
* There are people in Debian.
Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian
distribution. You
Raul Miller wrote:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
* There are people in Debian.
Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
indicates that Debian means the Debian system or the Debian
distribution. You
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
amount of time on this in debian-legal
Raul Miller wrote:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, trust me, we parsed
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How about
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The current statement is:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
How about ...entirely free software. This includes programs,
documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
legal
reasons
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
You have a point
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How about
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The current statement is:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
How about ...entirely free software. This includes programs,
documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
legal
reasons
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
You have a point
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
also aware that common doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
of my
Andreas Barth wrote:
Ji,
I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
also aware that common doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
of my
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling place on
Anthony Towns wrote:
No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
For my involvement in this debate, I've been called a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling
Rob Browning wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
useful (anyone who can generate
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
Marillat is a prime offender) that this bug is now fixed in
upstream, and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
has been uploaded.
Rob Browning wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then everyone else who is saving their time by using Sven's
driver would have to duplicate it, and that may be a significant
amount of time lost that culd have gone towards something more
useful (anyone who can generate
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian
Marillat is a prime offender) that this bug is now fixed in
upstream, and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package
has been uploaded.
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
