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 09:45:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think [foo] but the mere possibility of [bar]
isn't a problem even if we decided [baz].
So your position is that we should have non-free for as long as there
is any doubt
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
Hi!
I resist to allow my tamagotchi to dress in Branden and Martin skins,
and answer their questions too... I donot know how longer I can keep him
from doing that, though...
I have a tamagotchi too! He's called Foo (I have a limited imagination) Why is
your tamagotchi more suited to running
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
One thing I'd really like to see (in apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, dpkg-deb,
and so on), is some kind of tag indicating the origin of the package.
You mean like the Origin tag that has been supported for a few years now?
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
because it's the current system.
I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Sven
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th
December.
elfutils is not an example of
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's take two examples :
netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reached a
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I
filed bug #221761
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:41:20PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
case with the adobe package
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
evident that even if
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:54:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
And believing
that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
quite common,
That's
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 12:24:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 14:45]:
I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is no
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
their licence. [...]
On 2004-03-08 12:28:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, they care only about licencing, and conflictive relationship
with
upstream, not about
Just looking at very recent past, debian-legal contributors have had
constructive discussions with people from the JasPer, Mozilla and
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:20:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
more than a fiction to
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:41:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
you want to volunteer for. Debian has
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:58:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
this alternative
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is this a good
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
which is meant by it. And given
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
You were repeatedly told that this is not expected of you. If you failed
to notice that, I am glad to reiterate
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
this being the exclusive way of accessing this ? This would, i believe
be a very costless way of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
time i devote to
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users?
You can probably tell that I don't, and that's
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to you,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
the source code for the chipset, and modify it, or possibly make sure
there is not some
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there
non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe
true or not. But i
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you step in and pay me (and others who use the same modem) a
new adsl modem that
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:59:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
this being the exclusive way of
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
You were repeatedly told that this is not
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
the remove non-free proposal.
Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a lack of
maturity in *this concrete* implementation proposal, perhaps
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
include the real packaging,
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
Which option is: Keep it as long as it has been moved to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : we should be
polite to RMS.
That is a gross
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:19:44AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
the source code for the
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
company or whatever, which may have a vested interest in using or in any
way being
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
the remove non-free proposal.
Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a lack of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you step in and
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixing that ? And do
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:48:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 11:32]:
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
On 2004-03-08 14:12:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from
branden,
where he all but told me i was
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do we require debian developers to have ADSL now?
--
To
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry, I don't believe that we're boxed in yet. Even meeting a brick
wall just means the route became very steep or longer. You mention
possible actions to fix it, which are hard, but that doesn't mean it's
not worth trying them. I
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:41:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for sarge, so there is enough time to
get up a non-free.org if
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 16:09]:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
neither case non-free is removed for sarge,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS support and such.
Come on, please. On the one hand, you seem to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the conclusion that nothing short of the
full foss community moving
On 2004-03-08 14:49:28 + Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think
you should help to fix that bug [...]
Ah the old every person who has a problem is Alan Cox anyway so
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there
non-free package and for the (maybe)
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:26:48PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
not to speak about BTS
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
success, and i have come to the
On 2004-03-08 15:36:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
you will be unable to distribute *your* packages once non-free
vanishes?
Well, this is what the non-free removal proponent tell me i should do,
is it not ?
It's what
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:03:43AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
You mean like the Origin tag that has been supported for a few years now?
Analogous, but different.
Origin is something which is a part of the package, not supplied at
retrieval time.
Maybe a proposed implementation (maybe not
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:58:11PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:42:01 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
like the opensparc one for example. There is also a free hardware
community out there, as well as free firmware people, but these are
areas
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:41:15 +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
The main problem is that building hardware cost truckloads of money.
That's a good thing for our next DPL to do: try to bring Debian closer
to free hardware initiatives.
This was already a theme of past elections
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:28:13PM +0100, Markus wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
think that if Debian drops non-free they would
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:
I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can
be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
BIOS have ? I seriously doubt it is free.
It's not
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but it could. There are at least two free bios implementation
projects that i know of, openbios, and the other using the kernel as the
bios.
You seem to think my goal is to eradicate non-free software, or to
never touch it, or something like that.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free packages we have no control on.
If people want that, they can have it now.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean, not having a relative small, and negatively viewed
non-free repository on the debian archive, but an officially recognized
proliferation of third party non-free
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, my position is that it'd make sense to remove non-free when there
are only a handful of packages to be kept there, because it's likely
none of them would be particularly interesting and the effort of keeping
non-free in the archive wouldn't be
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
You have a problem with that?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
persue a political goal of 100%
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But i forgot, you only care about non-free should not be distributed
from debian, not about really running on a fully free plateform, and
this will only happen the day Debian is ready to stop any relation with
non-free companies, which includes dropping
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And you seriously thing that a non-free.org, being setup by debian
people in the wake of the non-free removal vote, will not be considered
as having official endorsement, especially given the opinion of at least
two of the three DPL candidates on this
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
Many of those users then think it's part of the Debian
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven and Anthony seem to think it is part of Debian.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A part of what Debian supports for its users, not a part of the Debian OS.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:03:03PM -0800, Thomas
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain any provisions limiting future
discussion.
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:21, MJ Ray wrote:
Remember that debian-legal is a mailing list of many
developers and other contributors, not a single person.
Well, actually, sometimes if you skip the posts of a single person
(which can at times be more than every second new post), it does appear
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040308 20:57]:
If people want that, they can have it now. Having non-free in Debian
does not prevent it from also existing elsewhere.
Moreover, the whole point is to *not* have it be officially
recognized.
And this is also the most absurd point
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 01:00, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And seriously, but does a we should stay
polite to RMS strike you as a serious argument you can bring to
upstream when discussing this issue.
There was a lot more detail beyond
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-07 18:55]:
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Are you familiar with the concept of an ambiguous phrase?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:46:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure, but the Social Contract wasn't designed to place non-free into
an ambiguous relationship with Debian, but to spell out exactly what
the relationship is. As I
If we are Debian, then the use of terms such as we or our used when
describing our relationship to non-free fit that description.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:02:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, look at what we do.
We have created a non-free FTP area.
I guess you're just
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
work, will you step in and pay me (and
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you familiar with the concept of an ambiguous phrase?
Sure, but the Social Contract wasn't designed to place non-free into
an ambiguous relationship with Debian, but to spell out exactly what
the relationship is. As I read it, it's clear: we will put
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:58:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:40:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
That's part of what this proposal is all about.
When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate
between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No, the keep non-free alternative does not contain any provisions
limiting future discussion. It is also at best a keep non-free for
now option.
None of the alternatives contain
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. If you are not satisfied with either text, you can vote for
further discussion. But if the keep non-free is the result of this
vote, than
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
