Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
Actually, I'd rather we could keep them.
And we do have an
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the binary doesn't even depend on the auxiliary opaque copy for its
work then there is no reason to consider them combined works. Many
GPL-covered programs can print the text of GPL but this doesn't mean
that the text of GPL is part of these
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
silly
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license by additional invariant section.
But the resulting program would be a non-free
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
say it is non-free.
No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the
GFDL together.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
Wrong. Because the binary would be including text from the manual, it
would be covered under the GFDL too.
--
To
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
program non-free.) This is not controversial
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
time to discuss it. Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
seems ... odd.
This is true, but note that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However,
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of
invariant-less GFDL licensed works?
Well, for my part, I agree with the main GR proposed by Anthony, which
explains satisfactorily to me why even the invariant-less GFDL works
run
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
desirable.
So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
many modifications which serve
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
As it happens, those eight combinations are only some
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
DFSG interpretations without
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
should be trusted?
So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?
--
To
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
votes were not about the GFDL.
Why did we take the second vote?
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Christopher Martin]
If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
agree with them.
And
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
Our fellow readers can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
old wording that can lead us to accept non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
What did they say in response to questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
accept non-free documentation into main.
How
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely it does. People who say I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception have chosen to be
deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
was not worth delaying the release of sarge
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
the basis of a personal
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret
the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
decide to make the passage of some
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as he
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amounts
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
This is a false dilemma, of course.
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
agreed with it. In which case those asserting
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
DFSG -- and that the social
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may
obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case
with the invariant sections, which do not prevent the manual to be
enhanced.
Sometimes an enhancement requires
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is
inherently the primary topic of the work - which automatically
excludes it from being secondary.
It seems to me that this cannot quite be right, at least, not in the
way craig intends it.
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your interpretation does not require any list of exceptions than
your interpretation makes GPL and many other licenses non-free. You
are free to have such interpretation but you have no right to call it
obvious reading of DFSG.
The GPL does not
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it is not said explicitly, so this is an interpretation. I'm
quite certain that rephrasing is not allowed.
You are incorrect. Provided you say there is no warranty, you may
change the text as you wish, and in whatever mechanism you wish.
In
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote.
All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everybody has the right to have his own opinion. I do not insist that
you have to acknowledge my interpretation as plausible. The point is
that
1. There is absolutely no decision in the Debian project that would
make my interpretation invalid.
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things
which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must
receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, we've had strong majorities for good suggestions
in the past. So DFSG would have to be modified should not
be considered an obstacle -- we just have a somewhat stiffer
requirement that the idea be a good one.
This is my opinion too,
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just an interpretation.
This is not sufficient. You must explain how your interpretation is
more plausible or likely. If it is just an ad-hoc thing, designed
only to get the particular conclusion you want
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sorry, it says allow modifications. Period. Not allow
modifications only in parts that some people consider important. Not
allow modifications, except in secondary sections.
I agree with Manoj here (as anyone following the discussions
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must
permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted
as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two
modifications (so that
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since we obviously DON'T all agree on exactly what the spirit of it is--you
say the spirit requires allowing modifications to the whole text, others
say it only requires allowing modifications to some/most of it--this GR can
show us what the
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification of
some features of a program, but not others, to be free? I would not.
In 1997, at the time of the writing of the DFSG, the BSD clause
contained the obnoxious advertising clause. Yet it
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can declare that same conditions should apply to programs and
documentation; however, what Wesley is saying is that we do not
apparently agree on what those conditions should actually be.
Yes. So, what is the interpretation being seriously put
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under
discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under
the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL
does not prohibit modification of the
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software
Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young
people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement
follows and why they are important.
This may or
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to
the DFSG which the amendment in question calls for.
I agree with this (e.g. that the Invariant sections
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have not yet seen such an interpretation
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The decision we have taken is that DFSG applies to all works, not just
to software programs. We have never taken decision acording to which
we insist on the modifiability of all parts. I'd say that we insist
on the modifiability of some particular
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We would not accept any of these because they prohibit some useful
modifications.
It is useful sometimes to remove invariant sections.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To interpret the DFSG to read into it language about functional parts
or to have different standards for programs and documentation, is to
insert something that is simply not there.
I do not interpret DFSG that way. If I decide to create a package
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this must be done in a *principled* way. If you are saying simply
that thet GFDL should be subject to a *different* set of requirements
than the ones you think should be applied to programs, then you can
find no support for this position in the
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I agree. Hence, common sense and gut feel. But it's a fact that all
developers common sense about the GFDL isn't leading to the same
decisions.
I'm not going by common sense or gut feel. I'm going by actual
reasons. We do not yet have
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Precisely; the point of my whole e-mail was that you can never solve issues
about how to interpret the DFSG by legalistic semantic nitpicking on how
the sentences are written.
Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm seriously asking, because I don't see it either permitting OR limiting;
it just says modifiablility. You read it assume it means that no limits are
allowed. Someone else reads it and assumes that it means some limits are
okay.
How does that
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing it to
have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the tables were
turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1.
Are you saying that Manoj is acting in bad
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are saying that The license must permit modifications has one, and
only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is The license must
permit any and all modifications, then you are really doing the hair
splitting, because that's
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, I don't even know what your asking for here. It only makes sense to
give a big long detailed interpretation of the points of the DFSG where it
FAILS.
We have people saying that there is an interpretation of the DFSG
under which it passes.
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They use common sense. If they are wrong in a specific instance, a bunch of
people will argue about it on debian-legal and the ftp-masters will either
let it in/kick it out or not.
This is not an argument in favor of the amendment, nor is it
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, I have honestly been trying to do this, but for whatever reason,
it's not being communicated well. Partly, this may be because I'm been
trying not to arguing a specific stance, but that other stances should be
considered valid
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I won't, because it's actually a very good argument as to why
invariant sections could be seen as less of a problem: if we allow
unmodifiable-but-patcheable programs, it is not unreasonable to say that
we should allow documents that are (in part)
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Acording to Stallman more or less the same freedoms should apply to
all so called functional works.
However, Debian only distributes things that have such freedoms,
whether functional works or not. RMS may say that non-functional
things do not
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether
you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is
inappropriate on Debian mailing lists.
Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. We
can't continue like this for long. This sort of
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
supermajority requirement.
The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the
3:1 requirement if applied
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to do
- to establish a position statement stating that
GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free (and
therefore acceptable in main). Is your point
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
issue.
You may
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
I propose the Debian project release the following statement on
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This GR effectively overrides decisions by the DPL and his delegates,
and should mention this.
Which decisions?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Despite my attempt to vote on the pending GR, I receive the following
friendly error message:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Despite my attempt to vote on the pending GR, I receive the following
friendly error message:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Despite my attempt to vote on the pending GR, I receive the following
friendly error message:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is the default error message that Exim4 gives if no other message has
been configured in an ACL.
Presumably there's a bug in one of the ACLs, or the message could not be
delivered for another reason that the person who wrote the ACL did not
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For what it is worth, devotee did get an email grom tb, and
his name appears on the voters list at
http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_declassification_voters.txt
An ack was also sent by devotee.
Yes, this is correct, after I
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a draft. I would prefer to start and end a vote on
weekends; this gives me far more time to spend on start/mid/end vote
activities than if they fell on work days; and it gives me time to
properly set up the voting and the
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software
releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly
accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not
interesting for anyone. Should we force that to
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] And if this is a
problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure
only for future posts.
I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
us wide
Thanks for your suggestions.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ideally, you should ask your question(s) at the begining
of the campaigning period, or maybe immediately before,
rather than half way through.
I'll do this.
If you're going to be providing answers for people
who don't
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:31:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Thanks for your clarity. This does not, I would notice, say anything
about non-candidates.
What are you trying to accomplish here?
I wanted to hear from the candidates their views
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What work?
A developer who never acts would have no work to review. The technical
committee would thus never have any reason to override any decisions
this developer made -- because there would be no such decisions.
I have in mind, for example, the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As described, this is an administrative issue, rather than a technical
issue.
Yes, that's correct. At present there is no reason for tech-ctte to
be involved. My example was poorly chosen.
Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technical
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beyond that... since you've not actually stated any technical issues,
and since the maintainer of that package is one of the DPL candidates, I
think you should make an effort to be clear about what you're saying here.
This is a different question, and I
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This is not the case; in most cases the people complaining about
ifupdown have made it very clear they're not interested in
co-maintenance.
I know one person who is interested in co-maintenance. It doesn't
really matter what in most cases means,
101 - 200 of 793 matches
Mail list logo
