Re: Use of the first person in messages from the computer
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk I have just received a review by a l10n team of a package of mine. The reviewer seems to be under the impression that there is something wrong with the computer speaking to the user in the first person. I'm not active within the l10n-english reviews for some time (see below) and while I agree with the comments about using the simplest constructions, I think there is something wrong with personifying the system. It hates that. While we can all engage in a huge discussion about what we like, that should be a last resort. Is there any research-based guidance about what is best for human/computer interaction? (for some value of best) Also relevant is their guide to (paper) forms[3], which contains this imprecation: * Make it personal Use `you' rather than, for instance, `the applicant' [etc.] Use `we' rather than, for instance, `the council' [etc.] This example is rather easier, because the author of the form is presumably part of the council or whatever, so the first person plural we is accurate. So, the example: - If you approve, I will edit /etc/X11/app-default/XTerm for you, and - save your old file as XTerm.backup.not-trad. (Note that this is a - conffile so you may get prompts from dpkg about it in the future.) would become something like: If you approve, we will change /etc/X11/app-default/XTerm for you, and save your old file as XTerm.backup.not-trad. (Note that this is a conffile, so you may get prompts from dpkg about it in the future.) where we would be the debian project contributors. After all, the computer is not doing anything on its own - it is just carrying out some instructions from the project as the user fills out a glorified form. It would be freaky if a council form said I, wouldn't it? My reviewer also seems to think there is (sometimes?) something wrong with the use of the second person to refer to the user or the owner of the system. [...] I disagree with making things impersonal for the sake of it, but I'd note that the user is not necessarily the system's owner, so I'm not sure about using the possessive. Finally, the reviewer revealed in the review that they're not a native speaker of English. Is it normal for l10n reviews to be conducted by non-native speakers of the target language ? Are we really so short of native English speaking l10n reviewers ? If so I would be happy to help (although you may find me too opinionated...) Yes, we are so short of native English speakers to do the reviews. Help would be welcome, but we probably should resolve the differences above as a first step, else it will just inflame things. However, personally, I feel we're short of reviewers because the review process requires too many resources - it expects reviewers to be online too often, sends too much email noise, has long delays and risks collisions at various steps. I think that's why there's only ever been about six reviewers AFAICS (of which, I think only half were first-language speakers), most of whom only did one review, and it's fallen to only one second-language reviewer since last August. Actually, I wondered what the review process is now. It's not on http://www.debian.org/international/ and nor is the l10n-english list and it's not mentioned in mails like http://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2012/02/msg00030.html but a later email http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2012/02/msg00011.html did contain a link to http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/SmithDebconfReviewProcess It looks like there are some scripts now (one reason I dropped out, but I've not checked their functionality), but the process still seems no easier to track and there are still collisions, which both waste contributor effort and are sort-of related. I have not had time to try to bugfix the process and I don't really know where to start: the wiki page is immutable anyway (it might be editable if you are allowed to create an account, which some disabled developers are not, so I do not know). There's also an understandable resistence to lapsed contributors who try to bugfix debian's processes that work well enough, but maybe this one really is not working well enough. Thanks for your comments, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1rvuio-0004g2...@petrol.towers.org.uk
Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source
Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org wrote: GeoIP is a quite usefull library for geolocation. It has got a stable ABI/API and upstream is normaly very helpfull with patches and issues. [...] Currently I see only three options: 1) upstream decides to open his build system 2) we move it to contrib with all consequences 3) we leave it as it is 4) we deduce the build system by looking at the CSVs and how the library uses the binary dat files, then junk the upstream-built dat files. I've no idea if this is feasible, but it's another option. It seems a shame if an upstream wants a library removed from the debian operating system and uses data files to achieve that, but shouldn't we respect that for now? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: CC Attribution ShareALike (CC-by-sa) 3.0
Holger Levsen holger at layer-acht.org writes: On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote: ISTR (some of) -legal@ saying not DFSG-compliant, some people on -legal will always disagree, what counts more is the (rough) consenus... Sure, but I thought we had an explicit consensus on discrimination against fields of endeavour, which is seen in CC-By 3.0 4.a about effective technological measures. Happily, that's only a lawyerbomb (in that no-one, even within CC, seemed to agree what it means for debian - is offering source code enough to satisfy it?) and not a current live problem. Beware some of the ported CCs which include the trademark notice by mistake and produced a licence which failed to follow DFSG - and some were incompatible with other CC licences. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray My Opinion Only, see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RfD: Version conflicts when updating Drupal in Debian
Ingo Jürgensmann ij at 2008.bluespice.org writes: For example the drupal6 package is version 6.6-1.1 while the problem which lead to 6.6-1.1 was fixed in upstream version 6.7. [...] the user/admin is now informed about (security) updates of installed modules, which is a good thing for security as well. [...] So, how can this be solved so that our users are not irritated everytime they visit their own Drupal sites? 1. patch debian's drupal so it thinks it is equivalent to 6.7 in the above example; 2. patch debian's drupal to disable the check of debian-packaged drupal modules (maybe through debconf option?); 3. something else. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ssh.upload.debian.org
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It's just the usual nit-picking on anybody who actually does anything to improve our infrastructure. [...] It's also combined with the usual failure by many people who improve our infrastructure to accept they wrote a confusing email (ftp-master is a symbolic name, even though it's not the best symbolic name for an upload server these days) and stop the thread, preferring instead to keep flaming other DDs and spinning the wheels. Posting a simple mail like I can't predict why we might want to move it, but it seems like a possibility we should leave open and yes, ftp-master was a symbolic name, but isn't the best one now. Please use the new symbolic names. a few messages back might have stopped this. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ssh.upload.debian.org
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote: Posting a simple mail like I can't predict why we might want to move it, but it seems like a possibility we should leave open and yes, ftp-master was a symbolic name, but isn't the best one now. Please use the new symbolic names. a few messages back might have stopped this. It also isn't accurate. The name was changed for the very reason that upload place should be uncoupled from archive maint place, for the few times where ries does go down. It was proposed when this happened last time, a few weeks back. Yes! ftp-master isn't the best symbolic name for the upload place now! If someone can predict why we might want to move it then fine, by all means change the message to give the reason. The above advice remains good in general terms. Just because *you* don't get it doesn't mean it's stupid. Indeed, but if several DDs didn't get it and were even willing to brave the typical debian email abuse to query it, that may mean it was confusing. Confusing is not the same as stupid and it could have been clarified without all this heat. (*I* got it, BTW.) Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some debian project machines uncontactable?
gluck, merkel, samosa and raff uncontactable (192.25.206.* network problem?) I don't know anything more at this time, but wanted to push a small message out so that others know it isn't just them and lists and IRC are both still up, as far as I can see so far. We now return you to your regular guestbook-spam. [Please cc me on any replies.] -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MTA comparison (postfix, exim4, ...)
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Instead of removing data on you, it may be interesting to edit the following text to provide information on you and also add section on why you think exim is better as note on wiki. http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA There is no link to edit that page. IIRC, if I do some combination of reconfiguring the web browser, making Yet Another Login, sacrificing a kitten and wrapping this building in silly putty, then it appears, but it's simpler to send email than edit the wiki. You could add this thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg00350.html to ML Discussion if you're set up for editing it. (BTW, your message-ids are @localhost - MTA config OK? ;- ) Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MTA comparison (postfix, exim4, ...)
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After seeing recent post(*) on the default MTA issue, I did some research and experiment on MTAs. They are summarized at: http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA Although I am identified as running Postfix there, that was installed as a test a while ago. Most of my upstream servers (including those which I control) run Exim and I will probably switch nail back to Exim on next upgrade. There are problems with Postfix that I just haven't figured out and cause me problems: 1. it doesn't seem to have as many anti-spam possibilities as Exim - there's postgrey for greylisting, but how can I tarpit RBL matches and other offences? 2. when an email that I'm forwarding (due to /etc/aliases or a .forward or whatever) comes in, can I start trying to send it straight out and SMTP-reject it if the remote host doesn't want it? My only production postfix server generates some blowback from joe-jobs if users forward mail to a more restrictive host, which I think is a serious problem. I'd love to know if the above are solved problems whose solutions I've not found. Otherwise, you may want to discount my appearance on http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA as that Postfix won't last. Best wishes, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MTA comparison (postfix, exim4, ...)
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Still, if not...well, I wrote an event-driven postfix policy daemon in perl using POE that's able to handle 100 queries/second on consumer hardware in a few dozen lines of code. Thanks for the pointers. Can a policy server delay an incoming mail? I suspect that sleeping in the perl would delay all incoming mail and there's no access(5) response like Exim's delay, else I could do it another way. How can it be done? (I want to increase the connection cost to maybe-spammers of sending to my postfix...) MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. when an email that I'm forwarding (due to /etc/aliases or a .forward or whatever) comes in, can I start trying to send it straight out and SMTP-reject it if the remote host doesn't want it? [...] I believe http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html details the facility you're looking for. I don't believe it does. I don't want to verify the recipient address - I want to try delivering the redirected mail and avoid being left holding the baby if the destination MX doesn't want it or is MIA. About Bernd Zeimetz's comment: I think it's not a way to DoS any more than delivering directly to the destination MX is a way to DoS. Sending hosts generally can't tell that the message is being redirected and they'd be caught in neg-exp rate limits for trying to send too much bad mail before it becomes a DoS on most hosts, as well as whatever the target MX is doing. Even so, redirecting mail is discouraged because it increases the number of links in the chain. Thanks for the comments, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#447712: Package could be non-free in the United Kingdom
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti: But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction. If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and therefore it is the crown that sets the license. [...] But don't trust me on this, I am merely speculating. AFAICT, that's incorrect: this restriction is from the letters patent, not the copyright (which has long since expired). Wikipedia seems to have been corrected on this since I last looked. Also, it's also not clear whether the patent is actively enforced and it's well-known as not enforced against most printing outside the UK (the KJV is frequently printed in the US, for example, isn't it?) even by Englishmen. So, does debian really need to remove packages of such importance because of a trivially-avoidable not-obviously-enforced patent? Surprised, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] and a vaguely interesting note is: * actually suing based on the license might be complicated by a choice of venue That you can argue the latter is analogous to a fee isn't really very interesting. That some people are concerned about it is more so, though so far the only concrete concern I've seen is MJ's comment -- A possible arbitrary lawyer-fee-bomb, depending on the venue specified and its sanity. and that's not really very concrete either. How about a reference for that quote? I suspect it's from an analysis of the CDDL rather than a package, so it's not concrete because this needs to be checked for each venue used by an actual package. AIUI, star specifies Berlin, Germany, so I think Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is maybe relevant and any EU venue could be a problem for us. So the other thing that needs checking is how those courts will behave if an unjustly-accused distributor does not attend court or employ a representative to attend. Any German-speakers willing to point us at a relevant gov.de document? My German language skills are not up to navigating legal German safely. I'm also worried by '3.4. Application of Additional Terms' discriminating against commercial support, but it only becomes a concrete problem if the Initial Developer or any Contributor has authorised support agents. No, punting to a GR [...] ends up with -legal folks complaining that the resolution doesn't make sense. I think that most are reasonable and do that only if the resolution includes no explanation. ] From: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Subject: Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL ] Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:15:40 -0500 ] [...] ] Alas, now that pi != 4*atan(1), how shall we proceed? Interpreting ] licenses and the DFSG is nowhere near as clear as mathematics and, ] unfortunately, just ignoring the GR would, I think, make us look like ] sore losers. because clearly everyone who voted for the winning option is the sort of person who would think pi can be redefined willy-nilly, or that the only reason to respect the GR is to avoid looking like sore losers... Anthony DeRobertis himself seemed to accept the above quote was hyperbole: ] It isn't quite as bad as pi = 3, as there is certainly some abiguity in ] both the DFSG and the GFDL. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't we can both respect the GR as a project and let individual Developers note that they don't understand it? As I wrote at the time: ] It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution ] Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split ] when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus. ] There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG. Anyway, I welcome aj's realisation that giving good references is vital and I ask everyone to do that. I just wish his posts had more! Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free, except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free. Got a reference for that? GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the subject of repeated analysis, http://lists.debian.org/search.html is in the FAQ, http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq the web page http://www.uk.debian.org/legal/licenses/ and probably other places. I don't think it's particularly interesting that periodically posters pop up on debian-legal thinking they've spotted a new flaw in GPLv2. I expect that [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets a number of those too - debian's difference is its openness. I think almost all of them end up agreeing once it's explained clearly. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liability protection project - call for participants
Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Eg. IFF they (hypthetically) were to successfully sue the FSF, then we'd lose a large chunk of important stuff because the copyrights held by the FSF will probably be confiscated in order to pay the damages. [...] Even if that is the case (what is the precedent?), then we would not lose much because as far as I know, FSF grants a perpetual all-permissions license back to the original author of the copyright- assigned work. We'd only lose the ability to defend copyright infringment on the stuff, but if the FSF has been successfully sued, then we've arguably lost a big chunk of that anyway. Other than maybe making some GPL code effectively BSD-like for whoever sued FSF, the winner would gain nothing except the ability to police some of our code for us. FSF has its faults, but this aspect looks pretty clever to me. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Explications needed...
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not doing his job as buildd maintainer. Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is given as a requirement for buildd maintainership. You can't pretend to be the one handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions around problems specific to this architecture. Similarly, people can't pretend that mailing debian-$arch is a substitute for emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which is in the buildd section of the devel-ref). In message http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00161.html and the parent of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00155.html Aurelien Jarno comments about emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED], so what has this [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs [EMAIL PROTECTED] to do with anything? Would you trust a release manager who wouldn't be reading debian-release? I'd trust one who didn't read eveything on debian-release. I'm uncertain about who did what on the whole RogueOrNot buildd, but much of that email seems to be unhelpful. This looks like an old problem: the project doesn't recover gracefully if people in its organizational structure become unresponsive. Any bright ideas on how to fix that? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Explications needed...
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is given as a requirement for buildd maintainership. It seems common sense! Huh? It seems common sense that most subscribers ignore at least some list emails, particularly on unguided lists like debian ones. This has been common for years. See these links from 1999 and 1998: http://cmc.dsv.su.se/select/coping-with-too-much-email/#filtering http://cmc.dsv.su.se/select/information-filtering.html Debian has a serious problem if you have to write everything down. A buildd maintainer must be able to type Unix commands on a keyboard. I agree. It seems silly if we must write buildd maintainers do not have to read all emails to debian-$arch. So, back to the more general problem: how should the project handle bits of the organization going silent? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The bigger issue is badly licensed blobs (was Re: Firmware poll
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise, Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with, It's generally quite easy to spot the nonsense. Look for telltale signs like: 1. over-use of authoritative statements and guesswork (such as 'many people X' or 'most people X' instead of 'some people X') to support a weak argument; 2. refusing to explain reasoning which leads to a conclusion; 3. failure to give references to past discussions unless pressed. (Observant readers will have spotted parts of 1, 2 and 3 in support of several of the proposed GRs.) It's a shame that we have to play 'spot the nonsense' but that's how the weakly-moderated debian lists seem to work when the cost of gathering data about the possible solutions is so high. if I were an ftpmaster I would find that claim insulting. Could it be insulting but accurate? Brains out on the table, please! How many ftpmasters: a) have previously been involved in copyright cases; b) have previously been involved in trademark or patent cases; c) are currently studying for a legal qualification; or d) are currently employed as legal experts? The only claim to expertise that debian-legal has is in the area of analyzing license terms and how they stack up against the requirements of the DFSG. That is an important function, but it is *not* legal expertise. There have been debian-legal contributors in each of the above categories, (examples OTTOMH: a. me c. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00197.html d. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00133.html ) although some don't stick around long because of the 'spot the nonsense' contests. The qualified experts are mostly quiet in the DFSG-comparison threads, as that's mostly not a legal expertise subject and tends to draw quite offensive personal abuse from some contributors. Some other stuff, like permission to distribute, is more obviously linked to law. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the last post wins school of debate. People don't listen, they just assert their point of view --- back and forth [...] Yes, I think that's a problem. There's a skill to concluding a discussion which is hard to master even once you realise you need it. Sadly, basic research skills seem to go out of the window when someone has a pet licence, a pet peeve, or pet code under a bizarre licence. There are actually good, clear summaries of most d-l topics somewhere in the archive. They're not always easy to find and indexing them would be a masterpiece of guesswork, but it is usually possible to find them by looking for similar clauses in other licences, other packages under the same licence and so on. Write-only participants are actually even more damaging to debian-legal, where a few complex topics keep arising over and over again, than to most debian lists. As a result, I have deliberately avoided d-l, because I have better things to do with my time. [...] It is possible to manage d-l on a personal level. Recently, I ignore many threads which aren't obviously to do with practical package problems or obvious requests for comment (how did I get in this one?). I'm happy for the random discussions of those who have time to continue mostly unwatched: interacting with them when they matter seems to keep most of them on track. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that might be useful would be active moderation of the list, combined with summary of the opinions (with both majority and minority opinions) that is summarized by the moderator, and which when it is due, can be archived on some web site or wiki. [...] I think that some moderation could help, to guillotine threads that show no sign of producing anything useful, but I think total moderation would harm more than help. Summaries of opinions are a good idea and there have been at least two concerted efforts to do that in the past, both failing in different ways. I don't think a wiki is a good idea - unaccountable edits while locking some people out (if wiki.d.o is used). Any summaries should be prepared personally (put them in your people.d.o space) and then signed by whoever supports them. If anyone does that, I'll link it at the next (overdue) update of www.debian.org/legal/licences/ -devel readers may not be aware of my Debian-Legal Package Lists at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/ which lists which packages have been discussed. They are announced early each month on planet.debian.org (and my own blog). If you only want to know the package-based work, it may help. However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit [...] Rather like my view of certain other debian lists. d-l is sadly average. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced. On what is that suspicion based? I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the best moderators weren't. Restricting to DDs would stop new posters falling from the sky and making wild statements which loonies quote as 'the view of debian-legal' but that's not a serious problem anyway. I think it would exclude all recent posters with legal training, which seems a worse problem. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that we agree that anything isn't Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault (which is fair enough) then that doesn't mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large majority of the software we ship, we disclaim any warranty what so ever. However, the DLJ seeks to prevail over all other agreements, including those disclaimers of warranty. Can we not just disclaim all warranty on Sun's java like we do with the rest of our software, or is there something in the license that forces us to give a warranty? The problem isn't Sun's java. It's the requirement to give indemnity covering *everything* in the Operating System. In fact, Sun's java may be the only thing not affected by this! Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where these decisions are taken. Who did that? I must have missed a few posts. FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful resource, should be consulted, especially in the situations described in policy, but the decision-making should be carried out like other package decisions, including not being spiteful when bugs are reported. [...] To maintain a package you need a clear technical head, a certain minimum time commitment, and the results (good or bad) are clearly visible. Whereas anyone can blow off hot air on a mailing list. Blowing off hot air on a list is always unhelpful. Parsing a licence needs a clear head, a certain minimum time, but the results are not often clearly visible. That's probably why it sucks, frustrates the crap out of so many people and the good work that is done is underappreciated. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory). The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ does not contradict this concern, so all the should we ignore the FAQ debate didn't affect it. Quoth the FAQ: | Simply put, Sun requires indemnification to limit its exposure for | issues that are not Sun's fault. If your conduct or your OS causes ^ | a problem that results in a third-party claim, then Sun expects you ^^^ | to take responsibility for it. Note that you are not indemnifying ^ | Sun against claims that are a result of something in Sun's code. You | also are not indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes that a | downstream distributor has made to your OS. You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.) Do you agree, or what have I missed? Regards, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm They do not need to. No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other directions in debian policy, but it's usually seen as good practice and developers usually take a dim view of such needless problem-making. really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. They do not need too. That doesn't change my surprise at them going off at half-cock about such a weighty responsibility. [...] -legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely debian-legal is just a mailing list and does not hold beliefs. FWIW, I agree. Anthony Towns was personifying it in the section to which I replied and I wished to make my point in similar language. I didn't notice anyone correcting his original post when I wrote that. Actually, I still can't see such a correction. Maybe, just maybe, the meaning was bleeding obvious to everyone else. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20 That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there is absolutely no accountability for anyone on debian-legal Whoa. That's not true. There are delegates on debian-legal, delegated to handle particular -legal matters, as well as various maintainers and co-maintainers, who are all accountable to debian in their field. It's a marginal point, but it's not helpful to introduce broad false statements like that and suggest -legal is entirely non-DD. [...] If people have weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, that's entirely their choice. Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that? [...] As far as I've seen most of -legal would have taken the same attitude you have -- there's already working java in main, I don't use non-free anyway, found a few token problems and stopped helping Sun at all. As previously posted, my motives are more complex. I think it's interesting that only those two were repeated. I disagree that the problems are token ones and I don't have much incentive to help Sun: I'm not motivated by getting in their PR puffs and the DDs who support Sun seem very belligerent and unwilling to consider bugs. [...] So, I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Sun's FAQ or emails when they aren't clearly explaining particular terms in an obvious way. If you want to dismiss the people who disagree with you, including myself, as unreasonable, then there's not really any point having this conversation. I don't dismiss them. I don't understand how such reasoning could work. If you want to dismiss people who disagree with you as pointless, then it shows a shameful lack of ability to explain and mediate. Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? If you're actually claiming that's what it does, then I guess there is. Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct PS: apologies for the odd register in one paragraph. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but suggested by the Developer's Reference. Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this. An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy s2.3. It is a direct instruction, not a 'should' like asking debian-legal for advice about approaching licensors. I think the length of the FAQ (and this thread!) shows this one's doubtful. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'. I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participants, including me. It's short, flexible and relatively clear for a licence. Please give sources for quotes. The archive search did not find that second phrase *anywhere* on debian-legal. About the policy comment, I refer to my reply to Wouter Verhelst a few minutes ago. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it doesn't say that: it says If in doubt, send mail to -legal. It doesn't say if the license is doubtful, which is a different matter entirely. We've been told both James and Jeroen extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. [Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] It looks like someone involved was in doubt, and ignored a good instruction in debian-policy. Debian should not rely on legal advice from the licensor, especially when the licence clearly says it prevails over other communication from them. Obtain it and review that advice, yes, but not rely upon it. I look forward to the end of language lawyering by the usual culprits and the start of a discussion of how better to avoid these problems in future. -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. We know that debian has contained buggy software in the past and it's probable that it will in future, despite our best efforts. [...] and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? In general, upstreams are not allowed to change directly what is released as Debian. Ultimately, it's debian developers that decide what modifications are made to the Operating System and are controlled (heh!) and directed by the various project agreements and processes, so I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. Likewise. I think you're ignoring that the indemnification is broad, while the exclusion is narrow. What do I miss? Feel free to reply to -legal only if you prefer. This doesn't seem like a technical development topic now. -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's sane to allow loonies to sue Sun over stuff they have nothing, but really _nothing_ to do with? [...] What's wrong with that is that accepting the DLJ is indemnifying Sun against it! It's also not only lawsuits. Reread the DLJ at http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.2.html#dlj and notice what else is included. I don't think it's sane to allow such lawsuits, but I've heard insaner lawsuits from the US in the past. The DLJ does little to stop them. It just seems to cover Sun's wallet. Is it right for free software distributors to cover Sun's wallet? [...] and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? [...] I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If it occurs everywhere, it could reasonably be argued that either the JDK is buggy, or not tested well enough. Accepting the DLJ seems to indemnify Sun about the Operating System, not just the JDK. The JDK's bugginess is largely unimportant. Please don't complicate things by adding JDK bugs to the situation. That's a whole different question, much less clear to me yet. Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. If Sun believe things from random people that easily, then I've an Eiffel Tower to sell them at a discount price... In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. I think Walter Landry already did that with a ucsd.edu sig block. At least the reply was better than the For those playing along at home trolls posted recently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together official Debian statements. [...] Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft, if the news reports (and my memory) are accurate. There is also the delegation to a DD who assembled a team of DDs to work on another group of problematic licences. Sadly, one of those DDs resigned from the project during the delegation. I doubt that the constant abuse directed at DDs who help answer debian-legal helped, but I don't claim any insight into his resignation. It would be nice if all contributors actually tried to stick to our lists code of conduct and the constitution and those documents were actually supported in a transparent consistent manner, but most DDs seem happy to wallow in the brown stuff and sling it around liberally, including the recent unnecessary URNADD posting rash. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. I've not actively worked on this so far because: 1. I'm not up-to-date with the situation; 2. I've seen mention that others here are filing bug reports; 3. I don't use non-free anyway; 4. there's already working java in main; and 5. I think those responsible are personally at risk, not debian's property. This seems another topic that the DPL is inflaming unnecessarily. It's a shame voters didn't believe those who pointed out that #debian-tech rules are a conflict-creation system, not a conflict-resolution one. [...] Sun have made it very clear that they're trying to work with us on this for something that benefits our users, so that just leaves it to us to decide what's more important: taking a principled stand that we'll read every license literally and pedantically; or take advantage of other means by which we can be confident in distributing the software, and in so doing build a relationship with Sun that can be used later, and improve the experience of using Debian for people who need Sun Java? I know that you are confident in distributing the software under those terms, but it looks to me like most of -legal would have picked a third way: keep negotiating and wait for terms in which they are confident. I'd call that prudence and good practice, not pedantry or obstruction. [...] In this case, Sun have already gone to the effort of looking through Debian's procedures and started participating on the -legal list; -legal meanwhile have been obstructive in trying to tell Sun what their license means, even when that contradicts what Sun understands their license to mean as documented in their FAQ, and verified by their lawyers. -legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals, representations and warranties and prevails over any conflicting or additional terms of any quote, order, acknowledgment, or other communication between the parties relating to its subject matter during the term of this Agreement. So, I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Sun's FAQ or emails when they aren't clearly explaining particular terms in an obvious way. If someone seems to say both X is entirely black and X is entirely white then one has to look for some way to decide, such as the above. Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? [...] One of the simplest objections is that the free software community just aren't an interesting market for Java people -- we don't want Java, so why spend effort giving it to us? [...] That is a strawman AICM5P. There's been java in main for some time now and the packages show up quite well in popcon, so there seems to be some java people interested in us and it seems to be wanted. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] I refer to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I went through the NM queue. [...] Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction: 'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org' and Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay' so surely there was some doubt? Then lack of mail to debian-legal looks like a policy-related bug, as if sun-java5 wasn't problematic enough. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] license agreement; and (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from (i) the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or (ii) your use or distribution of the Software in violation of the terms of this Agreement or applicable law. You shall not be obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim would not have occurred but for a modification made to your Operating System by someone not under your direction or control, and you were in compliance with all other terms of this Agreement. [...] When did we decide, as a community, to defend and indemnify Sun for the community's mistakes in packaging Sun's implementation of Java the language and platform? Actually, it looks worse than that to me: your Operating System, or any part thereof - That is all the parts, not just the Sun Java packages, but stuff like GNU tools and Linux, so long as they weren't modified after our Operating System distribution. I'm not sure whoever drafted DLJ really understood what a distribution is - software packaged in a handy ready-to-eat format. We didn't write the whole Operating System. Distributor License for Java version 1.1 licensed packages should be removed from non-free immediately. Then the normal process for inclusion of packages into the archive can begin. Amen. (Disclosure: I used to help hack Java code (badly) but I don't mirror, support or use non-free, so my interest is limited.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIA Christoph Wegscheider?
Does anyone know the current status of maintainer Christoph Wegscheider? Last maintainer uploads: * qiv 2005-05-23 (sponsor Thomas Viehmann cc'd) * potracegui 2005-05-01 (sponsor Bartosz Fenski cc'd) * rsnapshot 2005-04-14 (I sponsored this) Staging repository http://wegi.net/debian/ last modified 2005-07 but there are changes to http://wegi.net/ dated 2006-02-19. I emailed directly some time ago, without seeing any reply yet. Please cc me on any replies. Off-list email OK too. Thanks, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bet there are no senior citizen developers
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Michael Banck said: [...] Or rethink whether your issue needs posting at all. This is Jidanni you're talking to. Please follow Michael Banck's advice before posting more opaque comments that look like pure personal attacks. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#357791: ITP: irc2html.scm -- Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with valid CSS
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: MJ Ray (Debian) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: irc2html.scm Version : 1.2 Upstream Author : MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://mjr.towers.org.uk/software.html#other * License : GPL Description : Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with valid CSS Yet another converter from IRC log files to HTML, but this one produces valid xhtml which really annoyed me about the other ones I found. It's not hard to do and it's essential for accessibility. I also think the colour selection algorithm is pretty neat too, hashing nicks with overrides possible. It optionally takes one argument, which is put in the HTML page title. It reads a common ircII log file from stdin and generates HTML on stdout, so use pipes or and to redirect them to useful places. Debug information should come to stderr. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (989, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (99, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i586) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.4.18-bf2.4 Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New packages.debian.org
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] donated by Schlund + Parner where it is hosted as well. It is a DualCore Opteron and only runs this service for Debian users and developers. I think/hope it should read runs only this service. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd and experimental
Floris Bruynooghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] But I've heard people claiming M-F-T is not a proper standard (despite not having an X- in the header) and even being broken. [...] If I recall correctly, you can look in the IETF DRUMS working group archive and you'll see it not becoming a proper standard there. You can argue that DJB is a one-man standards body, but I won't agree with its standards process ;-) MFT is broken by design. No-one should expect to remote control other people's mail clients. All one can do is ask and if you want to ask in the headers, fine, but don't go flaming when it gets lost in the noise. All of From, Reply-To and List-Post seem more useful to me than MFT's wrongheaded confusion of Reply-To and Followup-To. And I agree that in the end it is down to the user to comply with the mailing list policy. Although that in the Debian case I regard setting M-F-T to myself (and the list) as an explicit CC request. It's a poor way to request. Many mail clients hide it by default, so it doesn't seem very explicit. Hope that helps explain, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More polls and social pressure
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, if you feel a particular post was inappropriate / out-of-line bring it to the attention of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suggest using a bug report if it's important enough to track. This is mentioned as an alternative on http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintenance The bugs are public-archived. Are emails to listmaster@ ? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote: I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. [...] Stallman is amazingly arbitrary and illogical about manuals and invariant sections, ignoring Moglen's advice that we can't rely on distinguishing bitstreams for deciding what freedoms are important. I welcome debian's consistent approach: if it's in main, it should follow the DFSG (at least in spirit as far as possible), no matter what sort of software it is (programs, manuals, and so on). Stallman tries to redefine software=programs and many follow. It's not about holier than Stallman but about what we understand as software. Just programs for PCs, programs for everything (inc. firmware), or computerised creative work in general? Software is a wider group than programs: if you know esperanto, software is programaroj rather than programoj. Unfortunately, similar arguments seem to happen for many languages, including French: do programme and logiciel differ for computers? The FSF promotion of the FDL looks like a fairly obvious example of working against FSF's aim, but I don't know their precise objective. FDL looks like a fairly cynical attempt to create an adware licence acceptable to legacy dead-tree publishers and few of them seem to use it. Someone mentioned the encyclopedia problem where including an invariant section on a topic prevents text being reused in a manual about that topic: that's just one of the more obvious problems. I believe the debates about program copyrights, computer-stored music, video and so on are essentially the same. The same freedoms fit. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: poll on switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] I much prefer vim-tiny over nvi, others have agreed (at least Frans Pop and Joey Hess), and not one person so far has actually said they prefer nvi over vim [...] I strongly prefer nvi over vim. I dislike vim enough to install vile when I need a bigger vi than nvi. Last I tried (albeit many moons ago), vim's vi-compatible mode wasn't and there seemed little interest in bug reports (attitude of: How can you not prefer vim? Run vim and all will be well. Love vim.) AFAICT, Lars Wirzenius and Andrew M A Cater told similar things. I guess you don't count them for some reason. So, we'll wait for data on preferences and the size thing seems clear anyway. [...] Please cc me on replies. This is the only time I'll do so, to remind you to set Mail-Followup-To. It's your job to set headers expressing your preferences [...] MFT is conceptually broken non-standard DJB-ware, but let's not have this debate again. If you're using mutt, I'm just asking you to use g instead of l to reply, not hack headers - you might like to bugfix mutt to support List-* if it still doesn't. My request was as suggested by http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct so please honour it. Thanks, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: poll on switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] In the very same post Joey correctly added: It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...] 167% is a rather big margin, isn't it? I asked Joey, as one of the installer maintainer, and for him the size increase is not a problem. If it is a problem for the CD builders, they can speak in this thread. If it is not a problem for these people, why is it a problem for you? If one is honest and says that vim-tiny will replace nvi because the decision-makers prefer it, then that's fine, but this doesn't look like a technically-based decision. It doesn't seem supported by current data to claim that vim-tiny isn't a real size increase, or that this doesn't mean most vi users (both vim-fans and vim-haters) will want to install another vi besides the default one. Are there many vi users who will just use vim-tiny? Most small vi users don't seem to like vim, IME. -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: poll on switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no sympathy for the notion of a silent majority. If you have an opinion, speak it. [...] Hard if you can't hear the question above the NOISE. wonder how many people will vote for nvi bacause nvi is more like regular vi than vim. This is important even for an informal poll; I think that will be dwarfed by the we love vim effect. a vote is useless if it's heavily skewed, whether it's a poll or a GR. - vim-tiny is not much bigger than nvi (numbers?) Current unstable Installed-Size: vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k. nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems about half the total size of a vim-tiny today. - even vim-tiny is much preferable to vim users over nvi, even without vim-runtime - vim can behave just like old vi (as nvi does), and will do so when invoked as vi - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as important as size or accuracy of emulation. -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: poll on switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote: - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as important as size or accuracy of emulation. Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning OS/2 build, but it won't run on all of the platforms Debian supports? Who knows? It's not currently built for as many. For hurd-i386, hppa and s390, nvi is a working editor and vim-tiny isn't. I can't remember what counts as support right now (URL anyone?) That's an incentive for nvi over vim-tiny, but nvi is the current anyway and I don't see many benefits of a change. The -devel thread seems to have started with two dubious claims: that vim-tiny isn't much bigger and more prefer vim. I've questioned the size claim in another subthread and surely vim users won't be satisfied by vim-tiny. Please cc me on replies. Thanks, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: poll on switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Current unstable Installed-Size: vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k. nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k Ranges? Over what? Architectures? Yes, architectures. vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems about half the total size of a vim-tiny today. Okay, so that's not about the same. Stefano? If the above numbers are correct, then the best case is a (696+200-560)==336K increase. Last I heard, the CD builders considered that a non-trivial amount of space. Or am I confusing the boot image with base? The increase is between 101% for ia64 and 58% for i386. vim-tiny+vim-common is smallish by current standards, but neither about the same as nvi, nor only marginally larger. Was there a maths error near the top of this thread? Workings (rounded down, to be generous): nvi alpha 328.6 760 vim-tinyalpha 471 1072 vim-common alpha 79.9 232 =total alpha 550.91304 CHANGE alpha +67% +71% nvi amd64 288.3 668 vim-tinyamd64 433.1 900 vim-common amd64 79.5 232 =total amd64 512.61132 CHANGE amd64 +77% +69% nvi arm270.3 600 vim-tinyarm376.4 760 vim-common arm 79.2 228 =total arm455.6 988 CHANGE arm+68% +64% nvi i386 281.4 632 vim-tinyi386 368.4 776 vim-common i38678.8 228 =total i386 447.21004 CHANGE i386 +58% +58% nvi ia64 390.21040 vim-tinyia64 687 1852 vim-common ia6482 240 =total ia64 769 2092 CHANGE ia64 +97% +101% nvi m68k 255.6 560 vim-tinym68k 339.5 696 vim-common m68k78.3 228 =total m86k 417.8 924 CHANGE m68k +63% +65% nvi mips 302.7 824 vim-tinymips 457.31200 vim-common mips79.2 232 =total mips 536.51432 CHANGE mips +77% +73% nvi mipsel 302.4 824 vim-tinymipsel 457.51200 vim-common mipsel 79.2 232 =total mipsel 536.71432 CHANGE mipsel +77% +73% nvi powerpc289.3 648 vim-tinypowerpc408.8 896 vim-common powerpc 79.1 228 =total powerpc487.91124 CHANGE powerpc+68% +73% nvi sparc 272.6 628 vim-tinysparc 376.4 804 vim-common sparc 78.9 228 =total sparc 455.31032 CHANGE sparc +67% +64% no vim-tiny for: nvi hppa 302.6 652 nvi hurd-i386 281.4 632 nvi s390 285.1 648 Hope that helps and please cc me on replies, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: [...] Even if in the last two years it has become popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the project was not looking [...] Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its public mailing list and has devised a plot to overthrow debian, with no contributors who are DDs or discuss things with DDs! They are zealous, irrational and unreasonable, removing packages from the archive by force whenever and whereever they please, allowing no time to fix even the smallest licence bug! Not only that, but they molest cats and eat babies! Think of the children! Protect apple pie! Vote marco 1! Blasted troll, hiding in a longer email. Best wishes for a speedy recovery, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Free the Debian Open Use logo
On 2003-10-06 19:57:06 +0100 Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A logo is a graphical equivalent of a name. I do not believe that, either. The logo is more of a creative work than a word. As to your example, you should note that the BSD licence does not attempt to enforce the trademark itself. The use of a trademarked logo (whether Debian's or someone else's) can very reasonably follow the same rules. Is it clear that the Open Use Logo is trademarked? It does not appear to be part of the debian registered trademark public information. Regardless, this is not a copyright issue. Do you want to advance an argument that would allow us to keep shipping the Apache logo (and perhaps others, such as the FSF's logo or Sun's logo), but not our own? I'll listen, but I'm not holding my breath. :) Why do you ask this irrelevant question about consequences? I merely asked if someone can provide the requested reference. Now you're changing the subject. You're also engaging in the logical fallacy, Affirmation of the Consequent You appear to think it a valid way to avoid answering questions yet still add noise to the discussion. When I do it about something on-topic, I am engaging in [a] logical fallacy. What I do have a problem with is the argument that the presence of an actual logo (or other mark, e.g. an actual name), whether ours or someone else's, constitutes a violation of the DFSG. I thought that using an over-restrictive copyright licence as an attempt to do the work of a trademark or patent is normally regarded as a route to failing to meet DFSG. However, that wasn't the main point of the post to which you are replying. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ PM 8+9 Oct: visit me @ AFFS on .ORG stand, at www.linuxexpo.org.uk
