Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
thingy. You
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is
Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
themselves not happy with the compromise.
This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
thingy. You
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
wrong or right.
Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
be DFSG-free. I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a help, but not the only
way to manage bug reports.
Yeah, but just
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))
I'm on the GNU Latin translation team. I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
wrong or right.
Except that part of the problem is your personal
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
be DFSG-free. I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
In my opinion, Debian is an
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))
I'm on the GNU Latin translation team. I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
In my opinion, Debian is an
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
wrong or right.
Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
the current
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
non-free is not part of the debian
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
whatever
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
wouldn't be complaining so much.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution,
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free
29 matches
Mail list logo
