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
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 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 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 Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
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
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 meets those criteria.
This is just silly! Software without the
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 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 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 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 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 Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
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
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;
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
Why do you find that solution so unacceptable that you think Debian *must*
do something else?
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
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, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:12:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:48AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This page is wrong.
However, to be fair, I can find pages which agree with your
position. Unfortunately, they seem to also be pure assertion,
with no reasoning to
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,
that source-code isn't available.
Nothing could be further from
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 paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
--
.''`. ** Debian
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, 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.
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,
that source-code isn't available.
Nothing could be further from
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 paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
--
.''`. ** Debian
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
201 - 228 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
