Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I DID NOT CREATE THIS WEBSITE AND I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THIS ORGANISATION.
While I appreciate that member is almost certainly something without
any especially well defined meaning, you seem to have had a
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I Second it.
Here is the current version
manoj.
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a
change occurs in a foundation document like the social
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I Second it.
Here is the current version
manoj.
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a
change occurs in a foundation document like the social
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to
add a sunset clause to the proposed Transition Guide, so that the
specific references to Sarge are ex-purged after it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to
add a sunset clause to the proposed Transition Guide, so that the
specific references to Sarge are ex-purged after it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I
should allow for the worst, just
in case.
Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you
accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for
this amendment to the proposal.
I second this proposal, as amended.
- --
Remi Vanicat
-BEGIN PGP
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm pretty sure
it's rare in Europe as well.
I thought restrictions or bans on campaigning on the actual *day* of the
election were fairly common in contintental Europe, actually.
Well there exist such a ban in France
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm pretty sure
it's rare in Europe as well.
I thought restrictions or bans on campaigning on the actual *day* of the
election were fairly common in contintental Europe, actually.
Well there exist such a ban in France
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:57:18 +1000, Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
minded, bigoted group.
Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-03-04 15:06:30 + Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 15:40]:
On 2004-03-04 11:46:14 + Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's an old argument, and it's not going to be more true just
because it
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:57:18 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
[...]
Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
minded, bigoted group.
Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-03-04 15:06:30 + Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 15:40]:
On 2004-03-04 11:46:14 + Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's an old argument, and it's not going to be more true just
because it
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This is a proposed draft of the ballot for this vote.
Comments solicited.
manoj
##
Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
Votes must
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This is a proposed draft of the ballot for this vote.
Comments solicited.
manoj
##
Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004.
Votes must
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money
Sven Luther wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change
only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for
him to find it.
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
ethics in the most effective way.
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change
only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for
him to find it.
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
ethics in the most effective way.
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
And if some of our user found helpful to have
a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should.
Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the
free software, shouldn't they?
Debian
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
[...]
I presented a good example how
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther wrote:
I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in
dictionary. Probably it is something like lie?
saying that because of the work i do on non-free package,
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a
package with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical,
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
absolutely non-free - you have freedom to learn how program
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to
person 'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own
actions! Probably at this moment I will decide to cry It's not me,
who put me in such a
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't package and
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
[...]
I presented a good example how
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther wrote:
I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in
dictionary. Probably it is something like lie?
saying that because of the work i do on non-free package,
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a
package with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical,
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
absolutely non-free - you have freedom to learn how program
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to
person 'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own
actions! Probably at this moment I will decide to cry It's not me,
who put me in such a
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't package and
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three
actions do not contradict any ethical rule.
If you still think that erasing something from
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther wrote:
If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify
this program to help his friend to adapt it for his
needs. Developer will not be able to distribute modifications to
others who also need such an
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
You misunderstood.
Creating, using, distributing non-free does not make you immideately
non-ethical. It does not make you non-ethical later. It just compel you
to act non-ethical later, not always and not necesserelly.
One who make an
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three
actions do not contradict any ethical rule.
If you still think that erasing something from
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther wrote:
If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify
this program to help his friend to adapt it for his
needs. Developer will not be able to distribute modifications to
others who also need such an
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
You misunderstood.
Creating, using, distributing non-free does not make you immideately
non-ethical. It does not make you non-ethical later. It just compel you
to act non-ethical later, not always and not necesserelly.
One who make an
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Contract.
Rationale
-
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
seconded
- --
Remi Vanicat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP
56 matches
Mail list logo
