Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing
that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you
seconded the GR.
Yes, this is exactly my point of view, too. And I think
this
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
--
Current mail filters: many
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing
that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you
seconded the GR.
Yes,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, So you can make
effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system
that is not driven by the current glibc. Nowdays, we don't need to
do this kind of work which
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:40:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current context is what is the definition of the phrase 'source
code'? -- and we take definitions wherever we find them.
Sure, but we shouldn't assume that any particular definition is the
one we should use just because someone says so. We should look
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The alternative is no definition at all, and decide on a case-by-case
basis. I don't think that this will work in practice, partiallly
because debian-legal has no ultimate say on this issue and those
Debian institutions that have are not particularly
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree: decide on a case-by-case basis is not no definition at
all, instead it is each case has its own definition, and that still
leads to the question of what is the definition in this case?
Which case are we speaking of, exactly? Fonts is too
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we take program to mean a sequence of instructions that a computer
can interpret and execute, then it's reasonable to consider a font file
as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
Sure, but not bitmaps. Bitmaps are not sequences of
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
]
] We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
] in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
] promise that the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the
output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem
with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All of which is completely irrelevant to the question of what
definition(s) are we using for 'source code'.
We aren't using any particular single definition of source code. We
have never in the past, and we aren't now. Nothing has changed.
Source code
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're saying that for the case where the font was generated by hand
using a hex editor, the bitmap file itself is the source code. [And,
perhaps not by chance, it was the preferred form for making changes.]
Naw, because there are many equivalent file
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:20:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Which case are we speaking of, exactly?
Pick one.
In the case of a font generated from a METAFONT program, without
modification of the bitmaps, the source is the complete METAFONT
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we take program to mean a sequence of instructions that a computer
can interpret and execute, then it's reasonable to consider a font file
as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
On Mon,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler
(metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free. The source
code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler.
As it happens, the compiler is free.
But this
Get daily updated m'ortgage rat'es!
Buy a new h`ome with $0 down, get a low ra'te with a
3-hour pre-ap`proval,
available in all 50 states. We guara`ntee to beat any
1en'der's price
The F.IXED ra'te available from 1.5% to
3%
Get it N0W!
ckgncrs xjdvjhcih dpxdlsae mxgwo ejrplxag, xzgrsjegx
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary
called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready
for voting
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, So you can make
effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system
that is not driven by the
Hey honey! :)Death was afraid of him because he had the heart of a lion.Worldly fame is but a breath of wind that blows now this way, and now that, and changes name as it changes direction.
Debian, need cheap super-VIA?
http://singkamas.gfd-online.com/cia/?dcent flabbiest
Two things control
Florian Weimer wrote:
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Remembering
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
compiled C code or is alot of it assembly
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
Anthony Towns wrote:
* firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
in all cases
It's good when this happens.
* debian-installer will need to be
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
hard it
Anthony Towns dijo [Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000]:
The Social Contract now states:
(...)
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software content such as documentation and
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editorial
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a
vote.
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
It needed more development and
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:57:18 +0200 (CEST), Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's
appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to
change one of our most important documents.
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:10:47 -0400, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46
people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:47:09 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the
secretary
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:21:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Probably because the vote had a misleading title, probably because
the issues had been previously beaten over and over, and they were
I reject the thesis that the vote had a misleading title. And,
anyway, you are
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word software in the
old version of the social contract as
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like normally is used
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a vote.
It needed more development and discussion. It was proposed on
debian-devel that the GR be discussed and dissected item by item, but
that never occurred - instead we went straight
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed
it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one
is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Well, Ted said that there was a disaster in
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
Hi,
I will second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
Hell, n. - The state of being the richest man in
the world and knowing something exists that you can't buy.
Have a kleenex, Bill.
--Black Parrot (Referring to Bill Gates and Linux)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at
[ Please respect the Mail-Followup-To header, and reply to -vote. I will
inform debian-devel and debian-release regularly with updates and new
arguments in a concise and hopefully balanced way ]
Dear developers,
As was seen in another thread[1], the recent change to the Social Contract
also
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this proposal, or
barring that, amendments.
I seconded the proposal.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable
Greetings,
I will second this proposal.
Stephen
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area.
now that the
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is not
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything
beyond buh. Long time to be stunned, though.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
--
To
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen to
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fixed?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
I wish to propose the following amendment:
That point 2. above be changed to read:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:11:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming
I second this proposal.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
I don't believe there
making something useful for their users have their choice of either
(a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b)
try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves
the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other
distribution.
I'm
At Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:47:58 -0400,
Raul Miller wrote:
As an aside... or as a possibly related issue, consider glibc -- here
is a piece of software which is licensed as free (though RMS might say
that the LGPL licensed components aren't as free as he'd like), but
which in practice is
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
--
Current mail filters: many
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing
that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you
seconded the GR.
Yes,
Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not
going to provide a better one in its place.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:44:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Not true. It is my position that we do not need to write or adopt a
definition at all. I don't want you to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:40:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current context is what is the definition of the phrase 'source
code'? -- and we take definitions wherever we find them.
Sure, but we shouldn't assume that any particular definition is the
one we should use just because someone says so. We should look
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The alternative is no definition at all, and decide on a case-by-case
basis. I don't think that this will work in practice, partiallly
because debian-legal has no ultimate say on this issue and those
Debian institutions that have are not particularly
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree: decide on a case-by-case basis is not no definition at
all, instead it is each case has its own definition, and that still
leads to the question of what is the definition in this case?
Which case are we speaking of, exactly? Fonts is too
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we take program to mean a sequence of instructions that a computer
can interpret and execute, then it's reasonable to consider a font file
as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
Sure, but not bitmaps. Bitmaps are not sequences of
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
]
] We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
] in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
] promise that the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the
output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem
with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All of which is completely irrelevant to the question of what
definition(s) are we using for 'source code'.
We aren't using any particular single definition of source code. We
have never in the past, and we aren't now. Nothing has changed.
Source code
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're saying that for the case where the font was generated by hand
using a hex editor, the bitmap file itself is the source code. [And,
perhaps not by chance, it was the preferred form for making changes.]
Naw, because there are many equivalent file
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:20:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Which case are we speaking of, exactly?
Pick one.
In the case of a font generated from a METAFONT program, without
modification of the bitmaps, the source is the complete METAFONT
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we take program to mean a sequence of instructions that a computer
can interpret and execute, then it's reasonable to consider a font file
as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
On Mon,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler
(metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free. The source
code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler.
As it happens, the compiler is free.
But this
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sad but this is true real life story.
People did not vote for titles, they voted for the change.
I second re-vote. (If this is allowed.)
No. It's not. You can propose another change, which must win by
3:1.
I still feel like a bad looser by stating
Get daily updated m'ortgage rat'es!
Buy a new h`ome with $0 down, get a low ra'te with a
3-hour pre-ap`proval,
available in all 50 states. We guara`ntee to beat any
1en'der's price
The F.IXED ra'te available from 1.5% to
3%
Get it N0W!
ckgncrs xjdvjhcih dpxdlsae mxgwo ejrplxag, xzgrsjegx
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary
called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready
for voting
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, So you can make
effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system
that is not driven by the
Hey honey! :)Death was afraid of him because he had the heart of a lion.Worldly fame is but a breath of wind that blows now this way, and now that, and changes name as it changes direction.
Debian, need cheap super-VIA?
http://singkamas.gfd-online.com/cia/?dcent flabbiest
Two things control
Florian Weimer wrote:
Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Remembering
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
compiled C code or is alot of it assembly
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
Editorial
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with
as few as 35,
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
hard it would be to change a
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
one mind.
I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
hard it
Anthony Towns dijo [Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000]:
The Social Contract now states:
(...)
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software content such as documentation and
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editorial
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a
vote.
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
It needed more development and
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:47:09 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the
secretary
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:21:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Probably because the vote had a misleading title, probably because
the issues had been previously beaten over and over, and they were
I reject the thesis that the vote had a misleading title. And,
anyway, you are
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation
of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word software in the
old version of the social contract as
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like normally is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed
it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one
is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Well, Ted said that there was a disaster in
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
[ Please respect the Mail-Followup-To header, and reply to -vote. I will
inform debian-devel and debian-release regularly with updates and new
arguments in a concise and hopefully balanced way ]
Dear developers,
As was seen in another thread[1], the recent change to the Social Contract
also
Greetings,
I will second this proposal.
Stephen
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area.
now that the
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
