On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:43:52PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:13:55AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Given some options:
1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all;
2. Provide a way to
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050402 18:10]:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:10:34PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:51 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Putting items from the non-free archive in the installer images does
just that. It is debatable whether the intention is the same, but by our
rulebook, this is not
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Given some options:
1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all;
2. Provide a way to download the blob during install (while admitting
this won't work if the blob is the code for your ADSL modem);
3. Provide the blob on
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:36:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 03, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
| Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of
| Debian, and therefore do support various
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:13:55AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:22:51PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Given some options:
1. Don't distribute the firmware blob at all;
2. Provide a way to download the blob during install (while admitting
this won't work if
On Apr 03, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's
This is a lie. Devices which need a firmware upload are supported by
totally free drivers.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what?
So it is a problem, because currently it would not be allowed.
Where does it say that such images are not allowed?
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
| Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of
| Debian, and therefore do support various recent makes of hardware
| (link to list) that require non-free firmware that cannot go into
| 'main'. If you need to
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One example: with our current package management tools once you've got
an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will start
to show up in things like searches.
It is
On Apr 03, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
| Installer images x, y, and z belong to the 'main' distribution of
| Debian, and therefore do support various recent makes of hardware
| (link to list) that require
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:15:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's
true.
Do you mean to say a free
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:52:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what?
So it is a problem, because currently it would not
Scripsit Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One example: with our current package management tools once you've got
an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will start
to
On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:51 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Putting items from the non-free archive in the installer images does
just that. It is debatable whether the intention is the same, but by our
rulebook, this is not allowed.
Wait...so you're saying it's OK to put non-free stuff in the
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
freedom if we imply that hardware with on-chip firmware is
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When people actually get around to a decent Free firmware campaign,
then I think we'll have a stronger argument for not distributing
firmware. At the moment, the non-freeness of firmware isn't something
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Distribute the non-free firmware. Our users are happy.
2) Don't distribute the non-free firmware. Our users either download the
non-free firmware from elsewhere (bad) or replace their hardware with
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
It would be a better course of action to solve those problems than to
deliberately mislabel non-free
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
The fact that they need these firmwares to work.
It would be a better course of action to
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
The fact that they need these firmwares to work.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
non-free isn't part of Debian. Using loadable firmware is
On Saturday 02 April 2005 08:31 am, Marco d'Itri wrote:
It would be a better course of action to solve those problems than to
deliberately mislabel non-free firmware as free.
So you would have no objections to distributing firmwares packaged in
non-us [non-free?] on the debian install
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:01:34PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
non-free isn't part of Debian. Using loadable firmware is becoming
increasingly common in hardware design. In the fairly near future, most
modern hardware is likely to require it in order to allow installation.
It would
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
The fact that they need these firmwares to work.
So what?
So it is a problem, because
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be a better course of action to solve those problems than to
deliberately mislabel non-free firmware as free.
So you
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The installer images in question would of course need to be
labeled as containing non-free components, but that hardly
constitutes a logistical problem that is worth worrying about
for long.
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
The fact that they need these firmwares to
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
Which ones?
non-free isn't
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does it say that such images are not allowed?
At least current practice, and the build scripts not being able to do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:26:28PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:01:34PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not suggesting that we claim that firmware is Free, but putting it
in non-free is:
(a) going to result in an awkward situation for installation, and
The
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've suggested before that creating a separate section for firmware may
be the best solution.
You have not described how that would differ from using 'non-free'.
One example: with
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
On Apr 02, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does it say that such images are not allowed?
At least current practice, and the build scripts not being able to do it.
The only thing that is necessary is to update the build scripts then.
I
Scripsit Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've suggested before that creating a separate section for firmware may
be the best solution.
You have not described how that would differ from
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The choice is not between free firmware and non-free firmware. The
choice is between firmware on disk and firmware on chip. That's the
reality of the situation. I'd prefer us to adopt policies based on what
currently exists, rather than on what may
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's
true. If we want an alternative installer with some
Wouter van Heyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The awkwad situation would be that d-i is part of Debian, and non-free
isn't, so anything in non-free can not be part of the installer?
But having a (non-free) firmware section with components of that in the
installer is ok?
If it's done right, it
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas, please stop Cc:ing me on Debian mailing list threads. I read the
list.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.
This does present certain logistical problems for producing
#include hallo.h
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Thu, Mar 31 2005, 06:52:24PM]:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded:
We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least
some of us) decided to demonstrate how can
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, burn all hardware in your house. Now. Please. Then you have
definitely defeated the evil non-freeness.
As I have said, I don't think non-free software is evil. I just think
it is not part of the Debian main archive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify
| the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I
| could.
Sure there is, like, reprogramming the image shown when your computer
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:50:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What I meant is that if the firmware is truly burned into the chup,
then I couldn't change it even if I had the source code. It was wrong
to say that I don't *want* to modify it, but rather, that I *cannot*
do so.
That's
Op do, 31-03-2005 te 09:07 +0200, schreef Tollef Fog Heen:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify
| the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I
| could.
Sure there is, like, reprogramming the image shown when
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I meant is that if the firmware is truly burned into the chup,
then I couldn't change it even if I had the source code. It was wrong
to say that I don't *want* to modify it, but rather, that I *cannot*
do so.
This is, by and large, not the
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify
the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I
could.
I had to modify my BIOS in order to get my laptop to work with my
wireless card. This would have been
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:50:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What I meant is that if the firmware is truly burned into the chup,
then I couldn't change it even if I had the source code. It was wrong
to say that I don't *want* to modify it, but
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless, the point is what we distribute, not what is on my
computer.
Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
freedom if we imply that hardware
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When people actually get around to a decent Free firmware campaign,
then I think we'll have a stronger argument for not distributing
firmware. At the moment, the non-freeness of firmware isn't something
that seems to bother most people (even if
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:46:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify
the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I
could.
I had to modify my BIOS in
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Distribute the non-free firmware. Our users are happy.
2) Don't distribute the non-free firmware. Our users either download the
non-free firmware from elsewhere (bad) or replace their hardware with
parts that have the non-free firmware in flash
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:10:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless, the point is what we distribute, not what is on my
computer.
Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
from somewhere else to make
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:09:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:50:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What I meant is that if the firmware is truly burned into the chup,
then I couldn't change it even if I had
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? How does it benefit Debian if our users have to obtain firmware
from somewhere else to make their hardware work? How does it benefit
freedom if we imply that hardware with on-chip firmware is preferable?
The DFSG says that's the wrong
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:09:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:50:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What I meant is that if the firmware is truly burned into the chup,
#include hallo.h
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sat, Mar 26 2005, 11:49:37PM]:
This is like saying that people will use star office whether it's DFSG
free or not, so there is no reason to say we won't distribute this
until it's DFSG free. In fact, people can and do make things free.
Please
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded:
We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least
some of us) decided to demonstrate how can we can strike against the
non-freeness of the hardware development assets
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify
| the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I
| could.
Sure there is, like, reprogramming the image shown when your computer
boots.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
(I already asked you to please stop Cc'ing me on every reply, what else
do I need to do?)
Fix Debian's gnus. :)
On Mar 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are unable to fix security bugs in hardware with non-modifiable
firmware
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:44:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
One reason for the DFSG's modifiability and source requirements is to
preserve our ability to fix things. I see no reason why we shouldn't
insist on that for firmware just as we
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:00:20AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't have that freedom now. Your PC is full of firmware that you
don't have source to, probably can't change and probably can't recompile
anyway. It's your motherboard BIOS,
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure there is. Your motherboard FLASH can almost certainly be
reprogrammed in the field, as can the FLASH in your video card, hard
disk, and broadband modem. Probably not your monitor, admittedly.
Why is it OK for those vendors not to provide you with
On Mar 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe. But why won't you refute the arguments that are there?
I don't need to. What we are lacking is not those arguments, but the
key missing pieces: what freedoms do you want to insist on (as opposed
to the DFSG)? and why should we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
We should tell users: we are unable to support this hardware, because
we don't have the source. Among other things, we are unable to fix
security bugs in it.
We are unable to fix security bugs in hardware with non-modifiable
firmware and
(I already asked you to please stop Cc'ing me on every reply, what else
do I need to do?)
On Mar 27, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are unable to fix security bugs in hardware with non-modifiable
firmware and modifiable but permanently stored firmware too. Should we
drop
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
isn't for all types of packages.
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050326 08:18]:
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
editorial changes, so there was no reason to discuss anything.
You can keep repeating that lie
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
firmware needs less freedom.
I explained this multiple times and I believe that I was not the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
firmware needs less freedom.
I explained this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, while there was lots of discussion, there wasn't actually a
proposal explaining what the reduced level of freedom would be and why
firmware needs less freedom.
Anyway, you can
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You kept saying nothing more than we don't care about modifying them
because nobody will ever want to, which is, well, simply false.
Yet another strawman. What is false is your description of my arguments,
which were much more complex than
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
backwards from we want this stuff to be in main, freedoms or not?
Well, I would start with we want this stuff in main
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050326 00:55]:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
editorial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You kept saying nothing more than we don't care about modifying them
because nobody will ever want to, which is, well, simply false.
Yet another strawman. What is false is your description of
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only one who was aware that the outcome would change the release
manager's position wrt. freedom bugs in sarge seems to have been the
release manager himself. But that does not change the fact that it was
common knowledge that the amendment was
On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You made many arguments, but that doesn't mean they answered the two
specific questions: what freedoms, exactly, and why reduced ones for
this particular class of software?
Since I answered both questions I think it's obvious that we
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
backwards from we want this stuff to be in main,
On Friday 25 March 2005 02:51 pm, Adam McKenna wrote:
No matter how you feel about the term editorial changes, it seems to me
that if these changes were really so bad, and the majority of the project
is now against them, they should be easy enough to roll back.
All we need is another GR.
On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:25, David Nusinow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically
On Mar 27, David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
soapboxWe have main for those things which are DFSG-free and non-free for
the things redistributable but not-DFSG-free and there are people who rely on
this distinction.
So we must have been screwing them really bad until now...
Where are
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:25:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
backwards from we want this stuff to be in main,
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly I can't spot the flaw in this approach. In general we want to
distribute all useful bitstreams (programs, documentation and firmware)
in Debian. However we are forced to disqualify the ones that don't have
adequate freedoms. It's a subtractive
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:37:57AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Anyway, you can find a very old and partial selection of my arguments
at http://blog.bofh.it/id_33 .
Nothing there explains what the reduced level of freedom would be:
what
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And nothing there explains why firmware should have less freedom,
except for the claim that without this we won't be able to distribute
the drivers (and you say how important those drivers are).
Maybe. But why won't you refute the arguments that
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:44:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
One reason for the DFSG's modifiability and source requirements is to
preserve our ability to fix things. I see no reason why we shouldn't
insist on that for firmware just as we do for openoffice.org.
You don't have that
Le jeudi 24 mars 2005 à 11:13 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
Some would say that this has already happened. Not a fork, per se,
but Ubuntu's licencing policy (and the general level-headedness of the
people I know who are deeply involved in it) suggests that it may be
the refuge you seek.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:48:14PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting
software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where
people didn't hide the intents (editorial changes).
Indeed. These types
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
editorial changes, so there was no reason to discuss anything.
You can keep repeating that lie from now to
On Mar 25, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter how you feel about the term editorial changes, it seems to me
that if these changes were really so bad, and the majority of the project is
now against them, they should be easy enough to roll back.
Adam, meet Apathy.
Apathy, meet Adam.
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050326 00:55]:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
editorial changes, so there was no reason to discuss
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:49:39AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:13:05 +1100, Matthew Palmer
Some would say that this has already happened. Not a fork, per se, but
Ubuntu's licencing policy (and the general level-headedness of the people I
know who are deeply involved in it)
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050324 00:35]:
On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
longer available, I'd probably
* Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050322 22:39]:
I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of
useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work
out of the box on Debian because we decided that firmware are software
and thus should meet DFSG.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:50:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Is it as easy to participate with Ubuntu as it is with Debian?
In some respects it is easier. For one thing you can become a maintainer
there without going through an NM ordeal.
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050322 22:39]:
I'm also not satisfied with the non-productiveness of the removal of
useful documentation. I'm also ashamed that some hardware doesn't work
out of the box on Debian because
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
isn't for all types of packages.
Actually, nobody from the more lenient side has given a description
of
Andreas Barth wrote:
Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting
software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where
people didn't hide the intents (editorial changes).
Indeed. These types of changes are akin to changing a country's
constitution and
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
isn't for all types of packages.
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically reason
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:28:36AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't rehash old arguments. Nobody has argued that we should put
non-free packages into main, but we don't agree on what is free and what
isn't for all types of packages.
On Mar 24, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That may be true for documentation but certainly not for firmware, which
has been discussed to death. (Not with a satisfactory outcome, imho.)
And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
been discussed is that most
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:24:41PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
The Vancouver meeting summary upset me, not because of the proposals
to drop architectures, but because it contained a reminder of the
Social Contract changes. The project is moving to what I believe to
be a ridiculously
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
