On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into their devices?
Of course they do, but they have
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers
Andrew Suffield wrote:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into their devices?
Of course they do, but they have
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
#include no-cc.txt
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into their devices?
Of course they do,
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
#include no-cc.txt
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into their devices?
Of course they do,
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
our ftp archive to
#include hallo.h
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
our ftp archive to
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from
Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:19:17AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
structure is up, and works in an acceptable way, then i would see no
opposition to move
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 11:10]:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
structure is up, and works in an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:25:14AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
However, in this case, the proposal should say something like: The
non-free software that was distributed via Debians archive is now
moved to ..., and the clause 5 of the SC is dropped.
Andrew made it quite clear that he thinks
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 12:40]:
And the fact whether people think it is worth the effort to
differentiate between ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free and
ftp.non-free.org should be left to the person voting. It is highly
subjective and will *never* be solved by discussion.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Sounds like a henn-and-egg problem to me:
1. as long as non-fre is distributed through debian.org nobody
will build nonfree.org.
2. as long as nonfree.org isn't functional, debian.org cannot
(should not?) stop
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
debian/non-free though, including
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
want to talk
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
want to talk
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
packages to it, but i will not use my time and energy to make it happen,
as i have less
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
debian/non-free though, including
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
want to talk
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you measure increased demand?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that In the future,
we can
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not worth
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
unambiguous
in the message: non-free is not part of the Debian operating
system.
But forgetting what we told in section
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment about the
[Please excuse the top post/reply, I just recently subscribed to -vote]
I agree in principal that not having non-free software is the best-case
scenario, but that time is clearly not now. The Nvidia drivers provide
a most important example.
I have personally negotiated with several hardware
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
case, they are beginning to see the light.
I'm very glad to
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you measure increased demand?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that In the future,
we can
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
software could only be distributed in non-free.
As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
different. I think the project is already not DFSG-like
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
unambiguous
in the message: non-free is not part of the Debian operating
system.
But forgetting what we told in section
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be
However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
software could only be distributed in non-free.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
different. I think the project is already not
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment about the
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include using development tools provided by the
project).
I think
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
go. In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:58:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
First you claim that they cannot produce free software drivers (free
software is what we require, more than just open source) and then you
claim that they will produce free software drivers. Clearly, they can
produce devices with free
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to answer: we all do.
when no
debian developer can be bothered
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Again, I see you have seconded something which we still don't know
is mule or fowl. Do you think you seconded an amendment or a new
proposal?
It was a proposed amendment, now it's had enough sponsors to be
introduced. Relax, already.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
otherwise
provide.
It also reduces the demand for developers to
On 2004-02-24 13:48:22 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
It does not really seem healthy for the Debian operating system
development
to use its facilities to help develop software that cannot be part
of the
Debian operating system.
Oh ? Please tell me how it is a
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:45:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 13:48:22 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
It does not really seem healthy for the Debian operating system
development
to use its facilities to help develop software that cannot be part
of the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:56:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]:
You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
seems good to have a final
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating lack of support
What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
How do you measure increased demand?
Is demand one person demanding, or demand it somehow related to the
number of
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
who judges is a trivially easy question to answer: we all do.
when no
debian developer can be bothered
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Again, I see you have seconded something which we still don't know
is mule or fowl. Do you think you seconded an amendment or a new
proposal?
It was a proposed amendment, now it's had enough sponsors to be
introduced. Relax, already.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:27:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-23 19:57:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if you manage to persuade those players, and a bunch of other
binary-only driver writers, to free their stuff, more power to you,
[...]
Given your previous
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
otherwise
provide.
It also reduces the demand for
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling something such in another mail ?
Aren't we in the discussion
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but i think it is not a health problem, not a dissease, at
worst a
mild disconfort. I guess it is not even noticeable.
Discomfort can be a health problem. I don't think I called it a
disease.
Err, my anecdotes are
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]:
You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
seems good to have a final
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
I'm not going to address everything, but I'd like to point out at least
a few issues.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Err, my anecdotes are first hand experience. So, i think it is rather
more than vague sentiments.
Please publish the comparative analysis of the magic non-free effect,
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating lack of
What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
How do you measure increased demand?
Is demand one person demanding, or demand it somehow related to the
number of
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
Quoting MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:22:34AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?
Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?
On 2004-02-23 14:37:35 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IMO it will be decided by simple evolution. When everything that
users want
to
do can be done with software in main, then there won't be the
incentive for
developers to carry on maintaining packages in non-free.
I think
On 2004-02-23 16:21:29 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I suppose that Sean's comment was in light of both ATI and NVidia,
being
the two major graphic card vendors out there, decision to no more
provide documentation for their recent graphic card, thus meaning the
death of 3D support
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:16:46PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-23 16:21:29 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I suppose that Sean's comment was in light of both ATI and NVidia,
being
the two major graphic card vendors out there, decision to no more
provide documentation for
On 2004-02-23 19:57:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if you manage to persuade those players, and a bunch of other
binary-only driver writers, to free their stuff, more power to you,
[...]
Given your previous comments about the unicorn device and your role
with XFree86, I
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040221 17:10]:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian Free
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian
Quoting MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:22:34AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?
Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use
On 2004-02-23 14:37:35 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IMO it will be decided by simple evolution. When everything that
users want
to
do can be done with software in main, then there won't be the
incentive for
developers to carry on maintaining packages in non-free.
I
On 2004-02-23 16:21:29 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I suppose that Sean's comment was in light of both ATI and NVidia,
being
the two major graphic card vendors out there, decision to no more
provide documentation for their recent graphic card, thus meaning the
death of 3D
On 2004-02-23 19:57:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if you manage to persuade those players, and a bunch of other
binary-only driver writers, to free their stuff, more power to you,
[...]
Given your previous comments about the unicorn device and your role
with XFree86,
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040221 17:10]:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian Free
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Towns) writes:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs that don't conform to the Debian Free
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it? I
suggest that there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
aj@azure.humbug.org.au (Anthony Towns) writes:
I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
==
Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
programs
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
