On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
business.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then they
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
because they have no
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
business.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then they
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
because they have no
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a COPYRIGHT, not a
USERIGHT. what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
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
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Please provide examples.
We're still missing those examples, please John.
Those examples are the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
upstream and the work
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the
control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
it was the only reason
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
irrelevant.
Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
then
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free
anymore. Do you
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
So this is not really a concern.
It may not
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
irrelevant.
Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
fixes got
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
non-free package to the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole project, if you take a bit
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
you should spot them.
In
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
upstream and the work
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Please provide examples.
We're still missing those examples, please John.
Those examples are the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
i386. This is due in part
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
of very low quality in non-free,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
utility too. They just need to add a send-to header to the
control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
A, nice, this would be fine for the users, but
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free
anymore. Do you
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
it was the only reason
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
irrelevant.
Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
then
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
modified so as to ask the user You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
non-free package to the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
Sure. If you are concerned by other packages
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
irrelevant.
Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
fixes got
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
So this is not really a concern.
It may not
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole project, if you take a bit
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
Yep,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
this debate than you are.
I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are
always false in every non-trivial scenario.
I have never heard of
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If the committee currently working with the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
not
evidence of absence.
Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
the word, and what will actually happen.
Not just word play, as
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny would
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almost)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't
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.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
Dear PedantBot 2004TM,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it.
It's totally inadequate evidence, but
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
you should spot them.
In
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:
Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense
their software under the
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= in
another subthread for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
this debate than you are.
I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are
always false in every non-trivial scenario.
I have never heard of
Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed
by the social contract.
If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to
distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private
at a higher level of priority than non-free.
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
not
evidence of absence.
Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
the word, and what will actually happen.
Not just word play, as
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
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:
Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
moderate the incentive the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it. The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almost)
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't
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.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
Dear PedantBot 2004TM,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, no it's not. Eg, I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it.
It's totally inadequate evidence, but
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A
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 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
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
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 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 not be
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 upset
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[0] But what the hell. His aside was basically You're an idiot, therefore
you're usually wrong; which isn't a fallacy, presuming being usually
wrong is the defining property of being an idiot. The fallacy comes
when you
On 2004-01-07 14:10:52 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either that, or bad writing.
You are black, Pot.
--
Kettle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not
resolve it, then yes.
Works not
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,
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:17 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 you
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
