On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
I am quite concerned you still did not get past that.
social_contract.1.1 has been voted upon
Anthony Towns wrote:
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
ARGS. This is certainly one of the worst GR proposals I've seen.
Not seconded, of course.
I believe it would
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
work or not. Are they? If the answer is yes, then I might vote for
a delay. If the answer is no, then I see no reason that
Anthony Towns wrote:
1. I'm utterly frustrated with your ways. The mail on d-d-a could not
have any other answer that please release etch in time, that's
something a perfect moron could have predicted without a doubt.
26% of the people on the forums said supporting hardware
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, ajt wrote:
Thanks Aj, that's the best GR proposed so far.
I second the proposal below.
Cheers,
Moritz
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:11:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
(e) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall:
i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding
of the technical and legal issues that
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even
an idea that the majority of developers agree with,
Then do as Thomas
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to
the the development of technical measures that will allow firmware to be
separated; Don's isn't an exception at all, and won't allow us to release
etch on
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 07:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to
the the development of technical measures that will allow firmware to be
separated; Don's
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even an
idea that the majority of
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said
to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the
release for violating the DFSG, and for other packages, we just wink
and nod.
Now
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Now we have it flat out: Steve thinks perhaps we will simply never
bring the kernel packages into compliance with the DFSG.
I demand that you retract this slanderous remark.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said
to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the
release for violating the DFSG, and for
Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
These polls are USELESS.
They all show that people want to release Etch quickly. This can be done
either by shipping stuff in violation of the SC, or by
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:11:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
These polls are USELESS.
They all show that people want to release Etch quickly. This
posted mailed
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
translate to an emergency on my or Debian's
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:19:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
There is an absolute ranking in Debian,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:30:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
translate
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-07 13:35]:
There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-free
I voted against the SC change back in 2004, and I haven't changed my
mind. I second the proposal quoted below.
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
(b) The
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
work or not. Are they? If the answer is yes, then I might vote for
a delay. If the answer is no, then I see no reason that a delay
will change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we can't keep the commitment to make the
kernel free software?
We just
On 10768 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
All that sounds for me pretty much like
Oh well, its hard to fit our own goals, so lets
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
That's not entirely true, according to
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
Relative to sarge, 13 new sourceless-firmware-contaminated files have
found their way into
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
That's not entirely true, according to
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
Relative to sarge, 13 new
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
the change was not appropriate
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-09-05 09:49]:
The Debian Project resolves that:
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
(b) The term software as used in the Social Contract shall be
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:45:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well
On Sep 06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
From: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[more files and...]
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
Are those not those which have gone in the firmware-nonfree or whatever
package which was uploaded yesterday to non-free ?
Possibly. That list was dated August 31, 2006.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ warning: quote attribution missing ]
No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
the license of documents like the
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:25:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
work or not. Are they? If the answer is yes, then I might vote for
a delay. If the answer is no, then I
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
As best I can see, our users expect us to release etch soon rather than
either of the approaches to fixing that that have been mooted so far
(drop drivers or delay etch), and I don't believe we can fairly say
we're putting the needs of our users
On 9/6/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggesting the reverse would be a massive change of course for Debian
as a whole.
Would this massive change of course be a suggestion?
Or would it be something that actually exists?
If it's a suggestion, I'm not sure your assertion is
Sven wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
Are those not those
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:38:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
* drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
*
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:18:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
work or not. Are they? If the
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
users consistent with the first.
This is just your opinion, not a fact.
--
ciao,
Marco
On 9/6/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
users consistent with the first.
This is just your
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
translate to an emergency on my or Debian's part.
The failure to do this is no more
Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
Release on time (early december) 57%
Support hardware that requires
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:44 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
(b) The term software as used in the Social Contract shall be
presumed only to cover
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
do about firmware are currently:
What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
Release on time (early
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority of
the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly consistent both
with each other, and what's been discussed so
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a écrit :
Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority
of the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly
consistent both with each other, and what's been discussed so far on
this list.
Those polls should never
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
like to
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
Consider comments like:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
concerns with respect to those polls on -devel, and even asked you as
the DPL directly[1], mail that you
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:04:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you consider our ideals to be the original social contract, applied
to programs not images and firmware, we've been meeting and improving
upon our ideals every year and every release.
The reason why your proposal is
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:14:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
concerns with respect to those polls on
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
following the constitutional amendment to allow voting on non-free
removal, the non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
large extent, just not 100%) or that we are
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free documentation had been a planned release goal
for etch since August
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:26:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
reconsider whether the change we made in
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, a project like Debian is never ready, and never perfect.
Everybody knows that we are not meeting the freedom goals in the SC to
100% (as well as other goals)[1]. But I do not see this as a failure,
rather as a challenge. So why not try to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely delay
the SC change until Sept 1st 2004, delay the SC change until sarge
releases, apologise, revert to SC 1.0, create a transition guide
for the SC and DFSG, reaffirm the new SC.
The
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:53:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
following the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
Delay the release of etch (so that we can support18%
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
The current situation appears to be that we end up
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
There's two steps:
(1) we're not going to meet the social contract for etch
(2) having repeatedly failed to meet the new social contract over
an extended period, we
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
So instead of trying ot change the way some developers and users think,
we'd rather change our foundation documents?
Changing our foundation documents is a way of changing what developers
and users think. At the moment we claim on
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
Option 1 Release etch on time
Option 3 Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
Option 2 Do
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Open Logo use
Date: Sat, 1
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, but the fact that delay until sarge release won by a large majority,
shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at the time that was the best option on
the table. One option that wasn't on
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:18:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:49:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Indeed, but the fact that delay until sarge release won by a large
majority,
shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Heh, a FAQ on a website overriding the clear and explicit wording from the
license itself (Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.)? Who
would've thought...
What the FSF
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what this problem is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian
Constitution.
What? Are you
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation. It
wasn't easy and we couldn't make it in time for sarge, but we can make
it in time for etch. For etch, we have
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we can't keep the commitment to make the
kernel
79 matches
Mail list logo
