Title: Re: Re: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
I found the replies to my idea very instructive.
I would like to make my idea more clear:
- I believe that the wide choice of packages is one point of strength of Debian
- I think that the general
Title: Re: Re: Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
I found the replies to my idea very instructive.
I would like to make my idea more clear:
- I believe that the wide choice of packages is one point of strength of Debian
- I think that the general
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 20:34]:
And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be
considered as having official endorsement, especially given the
opinion of at least two of the three DPL
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 20:34]:
And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be
considered as having official endorsement, especially given the
opinion of at least two of the three DPL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 17:05:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example
?
If the Suffield drop GR has passed, would non-free packages count as
related to the project?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:03:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and
On 2004-03-08 17:05:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example
?
If the Suffield drop GR has passed, would non-free packages count as
related to the project?
Yeah, naturally. Unless you want to remove the non-free
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 17:05:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example
?
If the Suffield drop GR has passed, would non-free packages count as
related to the project?
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 14:45]:
I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is no
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
their licence. [...]
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:20:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
more than a fiction to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:41:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
you want to volunteer for. Debian has
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:58:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
this alternative
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is this a good
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
which is meant by it. And given
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
time i devote to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users?
You can probably tell that I don't, and that's
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to you,
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging,
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixing that ? And do
On 2004-03-08 14:12:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from
branden,
where he all but told me i was
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do we require debian developers to have ADSL now?
--
To
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry, I don't believe that we're boxed in yet. Even meeting a brick
wall just means the route became very steep or longer. You mention
possible actions to fix it, which are hard, but that doesn't mean it's
not worth trying them. I
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:41:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS support and such.
Come on, please. On the one hand, you seem to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the conclusion that nothing short of the
full foss community moving
On 2004-03-08 14:49:28 + Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think
you should help to fix that bug [...]
Ah the old every person who has a problem is Alan Cox anyway so
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:26:48PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the
On 2004-03-08 15:36:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
you will be unable to distribute *your* packages once non-free
vanishes?
Well, this is what the non-free removal proponent tell me i should do,
is it not ?
It's what
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I seriously doubt it is free.
It's not
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but it could. There are at least two free bios implementation
projects that i know of, openbios, and the other using the kernel as the
bios.
You seem to think my goal is to eradicate non-free software, or to
never touch it, or something like that.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free packages we have no control on.
If people want that, they can have it now.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
You have a problem with that?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be considered
as having official endorsement, especially given the opinion of at least
two of the three DPL candidates on this
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
Many of those users then think it's part of the Debian
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:03:03PM -0800, Thomas
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:21, MJ Ray wrote:
Remember that debian-legal is a mailing list of many
developers and other contributors, not a single person.
Well, actually, sometimes if you skip the posts of a single person
(which can at times be more than every second new post), it does appear
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 01:00, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And seriously, but does a we should stay
polite to RMS strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
upstream when discussing this issue.
There was a lot more detail beyond
Are you familiar with the concept of an ambiguous phrase?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:46:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure, but the Social Contract wasn't designed to place non-free into
an ambiguous relationship with Debian, but to spell out exactly what
the relationship is. As I
If we are Debian, then the use of terms such as we or our used when
describing our relationship to non-free fit that description.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:02:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, look at what we do.
We have created a non-free FTP area.
I guess you're just
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you familiar with the concept of an ambiguous phrase?
Sure, but the Social Contract wasn't designed to place non-free into
an ambiguous relationship with Debian, but to spell out exactly what
the relationship is. As I read it, it's clear: we will put
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no text of the social contract which applies the word Debian
to non-free under any description at all, but rather, serves to
mention both only to make as clear as possible that non-free is not
part of Debian, using those very words.
I
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 14:45]:
I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is no
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
their licence. [...]
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:20:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
more than a fiction to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:41:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
you want to volunteer for.
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is this a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
which is meant by it. And given
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
time i devote to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users?
You can probably tell that I don't, and that's
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging,
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixing that ? And
On 2004-03-08 14:12:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from
branden,
where he all but told me i
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do we require debian developers to have ADSL now?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
If you mean reverse-engineering the devices, I think even the
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry, I don't believe that we're boxed in yet. Even meeting a brick
wall just means the route became very steep or longer. You mention
possible actions to fix it, which are hard, but that doesn't mean it's
not worth trying them. I
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:37PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do
On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
Aren't you already? ;-)
Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
would have some weight.
If you currently threaten your upstreams
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:37PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of my debian work. Thanks.
Do
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think you should help to fix that bug, instead of writing to us about
how unfair it is that some of us don't want to support a bug of
someone else's driver any more.
Ah the
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS support and such.
Come on, please. On the one hand, you seem to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the conclusion that nothing short of the
full foss community moving
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the
On 2004-03-08 14:49:28 + Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think
you should help to fix that bug [...]
Ah the old every person who has a problem is Alan Cox anyway so
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:04:08PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
Aren't you already? ;-)
Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
would
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:26:48PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the
On 2004-03-08 15:36:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
you will be unable to distribute *your* packages once non-free
vanishes?
Well, this is what the non-free removal proponent tell me i should do,
is it not ?
It's
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:47:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
man dpkg-scanpackages, it's really not that hard if it is about your
packages alone. Limited free webspace is quite abundant these days.
A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example ?
If the Suffield drop GR has
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:56:48PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I seriously doubt it is free.
It's not
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but it could. There are at least two free bios implementation
projects that i know of, openbios, and the other using the kernel as the
bios.
You seem to think my goal is to eradicate non-free software, or to
never touch it, or something like that.
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 14:45]:
I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free packages we have no control on.
If people want that, they can have it now.
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
