On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
current situation and make
Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I should
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
our stated goals, users and free software.
I beg to differ. Indeed, the very
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
you don't wish to advocate?
Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
of our stated
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:45:34AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:01:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
You have upto now simply refused to give specific examples, and didn't
respond to me when i cited 3 cases i am concerned about, and which show
well the actual status
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:37:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And what debian developers are allowed to work on inside of debian's
infrastructure.
Care to elaborate? I don't understand that point.
I maintain a
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:51:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really
almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where
not
even the manufacturer of
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:50:37PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Not with respect to the porting, I agree. Concerning the merely
building of the binary .deb files... the maintainer only needs how to
login on a remote debian
Sven Luther wrote:
(One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course,
but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking
the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might be a good first step)
Sourceforge is evil and non-free anyway, so we
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:50:46AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
(One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course,
but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking
the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might be a good
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:12:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't find such assertions to be very convincing.
I bet you have a fit whenever you read a dictionary.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
licence
changes.
Can you give a reference for that, or are you making up Craig's views?
He seems to get quite
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not
resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they would
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of our
stated goals, users and free
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
licence
changes.
Can you give a reference for that,
Hi Sven,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not
well
On 2004-01-07 14:10:52 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either that, or bad writing.
You are black, Pot.
--
Kettle
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF
documentation,
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:42:47 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I
feel compelled to point
On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
licence
changes.
Can
If this is the case, we don't need to take any special action.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
You think it is fine that we distribute something that is marching
towards crap?
If that's just a trend, and not what it is, then yes.
To me, it's about living up
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
current situation and make
Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I should
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
you don't wish to advocate?
Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
our stated goals, users and free software.
I beg to differ. Indeed, the very
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can
be
used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
of our stated
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Could you please explain how you reconcile restricting our users'
freedoms is wrong with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability
to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no
(statistically
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in
common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
Many of us are actually aware of what is in
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
own computers.
The issue here is not what other people run on their own
computers. The issue is what Debian will and will not distribute.
And what
On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
[...]
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
This is ad hominem.
My
On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
[...]
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
This is ad
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:00:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
own computers.
The issue here is not what other people run on their own
computers.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:37:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And what debian developers are allowed to work on inside of debian's
infrastructure.
Care to elaborate? I don't understand that point.
I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver,
[...]
Ah, ok. Thought you were
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
support... Even for non-free.
Non-free does not get autobuilt.
I know, so it needs
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Sourceforge has a compile farm[1], and Debian has numerous machines DD's
can login too[2]. Not everybody has 11 different arches in their
basement... Without access to Debian-unstable boxes of all
Debian's autobuilders do
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Do you believe Debian should not be distributing what the Free Software
Foundation classifies as semi-free software?
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html
If so, why?
I do not believe Debian should be distributing
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Not with respect to the porting, I agree. Concerning the merely
building of the binary .deb files... the maintainer only needs how to
login on a remote debian system and how to invoke dpkg-buildpackage -
That is not always
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:56:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is
a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. they like to
pretend that it's
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:14AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one
by one. Otherwise I'm
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
In all the cases that I've been involved with, where the resultant
software has been freed, the presence or absence of the software in
Debian has not been the the most important factor. What matters is
communication with upstream
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is
a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. they like to
pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed
really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all.
you are no worse off due to the existence of these non-free data
sets.
Their existence or non-existence is not the point at
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is
the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure,
search voluminous archives for illuminating discussions upon all those
points with
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free for
use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be
distributed
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
glorious words.
trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
Well then, it should be no problem to remove.
If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only,
that
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:59:51AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is
actually less free than something without source (such as Netscape 4.7).
The no
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:13:00PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
glorious words.
trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
Well then, it should be no problem to remove.
no.
you just don't get
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is
actually less free than something without source (such as Netscape 4.7).
The no
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:01:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
You have upto now simply refused to give specific examples, and didn't
respond to me when i cited 3 cases i am concerned about, and which show
well the actual status of non-free software.
Yes, strangely enough I don't feel compelled
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:48:01AM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 00:16, John Goerzen wrote:
Indeed. Let us do a service for our users and provide them with only
the software that they can legally use, modify, distribute, and hack on,
together with documentation that
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:56:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD;
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:48AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This page is wrong.
You're not offering any evidence for any of your assertions, are you?
Here's another page:
http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm
Seems to
P.S.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Indeed. I am saying that the very same ethical arguments that we use
for excluding software from main apply to excluding software from our
FTP site. This is not a novel question. It has been answered already
ad naseum.
Uh, no
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in
common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
Many of us are actually aware of what is in non-free, as we took part
in discussions leading to its placement there.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in
common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
Many of us are actually aware of what is in
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in
common is a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
Many of us are actually aware of what is in
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
own computers.
The issue here is not what other people run on their own
computers. The issue is what Debian will and will not distribute.
And what
On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
[...]
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
This is ad hominem.
On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
[...]
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
This is ad
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:00:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
- get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
own computers.
The issue here is not what other people run on their own
computers.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
i have no idea why you're mentioning it, though, because it doesn't
seem to apply to you. according to NM, you only applied to become a
developer in October 2003, many years after we discussed the social
contract and DFSG.
My involvement with Debian
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Did you ever use Sourceforge? How difficult would it be for you to setup
a Sourceforge-like project to distribute and maintain your driver? What
would be the initial cost of setting it up, what would be the cost of
maintaining it,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
support... Even for non-free.
Non-free does not get autobuilt.
Michael
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
While Don't respond to Craig Sanders is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
support... Even for non-free.
Non-free does not get autobuilt.
I know, so it needs
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:56:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I do believe that Debian should not be distributing non-free software in
any way. Our project is about Free Software, and that is how it should
remain. I do believe that Free Software is the right way to go, but
removing non-free
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. they like to pretend
that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Sourceforge has a compile farm[1], and Debian has numerous machines DD's
can login too[2]. Not everybody has 11 different arches in their
basement... Without access to Debian-unstable boxes of all
Debian's autobuilders do
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Do you believe Debian should not be distributing what the Free Software
Foundation classifies as semi-free software?
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html
If so, why?
I do not believe Debian should be distributing
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:21:22PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Sourceforge has a compile farm[1], and Debian has numerous machines DD's
can login too[2]. Not everybody has 11 different arches in their
basement... Without
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Not with respect to the porting, I agree. Concerning the merely
building of the binary .deb files... the maintainer only needs how to
login on a remote debian system and how to invoke dpkg-buildpackage -
That is not always
On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really
almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where
not
even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...]
The discussion on
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one
by one. Otherwise I'm compelled to believe that Craig is largely correct.
His very first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:56:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is
a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. they like to
pretend that it's
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
In all the cases that I've been involved with, where the resultant
software has been freed, the presence or absence of the software in
Debian has not been the the most important factor. What matters is
communication with upstream
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is
a complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free. they like to
pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come
close
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Do you believe Debian should not be distributing what the Free Software
Foundation classifies as semi-free software?
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:28AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
ncftp, Qt and, by extension, KDE are three that i can think of off the top of
my head that had their licenses changed/clarified/made free in part because
debian relegated them to non-free (and contrib). i'm sure other people can
101 - 200 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
