]] "Dr. Bas Wijnen"
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:16:36AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > python-digitalocean, ruby-azure*, waagent, twittering-mode,
> > probably HBCI clients, python3-googleapi,
> > python3-pyicloud, python-yowsup, youtube-dl,
> > libgfbgraph-0.2-dev
>
> Thank you for this li
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:16:36AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> python-digitalocean, ruby-azure*, waagent, twittering-mode,
> probably HBCI clients, python3-googleapi,
> python3-pyicloud, python-yowsup, youtube-dl,
> libgfbgraph-0.2-dev
Thank you for this list. I removed servers that cannot r
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:15:01AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Adding a 'firmware' repository (and even enabling it by default), while
> it would similarly both improve that out-of-the-box experience and make
> the free-software bubble easier to achieve for those who want it, would
> not remove th
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> Actually, that isn't so clear at all. At least when it comes to current
> practice, I have yet to find any client for which nobody wrote a free server.
> People keep implying that we have many such clients currently in main, but I
> don't think we do. So there is no cl
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 09:15:01AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-08-28 at 07:59, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I think if someone wants to write a client with the purpose of
> > interacting with a non-free service, that client should go in contrib
> > and there is nothing wrong with that. I fin
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:51:16AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Policy is not the Social Contract, Policy is not the Constitution.
> > Policy can be relatively easily changed and is supposed to largely
> > document actual practices. So really, Policy needs to
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:51:16AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Actually, I haven't seen anyone citing the following part of policy
> > 2.2.1: "None of the packages in the main archive area require software
> > outside of that area to function."
> >
> > If we agree that "functioning softwa
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:31:15PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> I think the sanity check that fails today is a) free implementations of
>> the RAR algorithm exist so this is unnecessary
>
> I'm not familiar with the details, but I know some
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
> Policy is not the Social Contract, Policy is not the Constitution.
> Policy can be relatively easily changed and is supposed to largely
> document actual practices. So really, Policy needs to be amended. And
> attempting to language-lawyer Policy like this is pointles
On 08/29/2017 03:25 AM, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
Actually, I haven't seen anyone citing the following part of policy
2.2.1: "None of the packages in the main archive area require software
outside of that area to function."
If we agree that "functioning software" does more than print an error or
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:03:36AM +0200, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > My position is that it should acceptable for a program in main to require
> > a non-free service, or data, or whatever, as long as that program itself
> > is free and running it doesn't compromise the freedom of the user.
> > contri
On Aug 28 2017, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> My position is that it should acceptable for a program in main to require
> a non-free service, or data, or whatever, as long as that program itself
> is free and running it doesn't compromise the freedom of the user.
> contrib should be for wrappers, do
Carsten Leonhardt writes:
> Actually, I haven't seen anyone citing the following part of policy
> 2.2.1: "None of the packages in the main archive area require software
> outside of that area to function."
Yes, that's been raised. I've responded to that at
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/8
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 08/12/2017 07:35 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Aug 12, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" wrote:
>>
>>> Which would be a great example of software that is free interacting with
>>> software that is non-free. Thus the package with this as its main purpose
>>> should live in contrib. T
On 08/12/2017 07:35 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 12, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" wrote:
>
>> Which would be a great example of software that is free interacting with
>> software that is non-free. Thus the package with this as its main purpose
>> should live in contrib. There's nothing wrong with that.
]] "Dr. Bas Wijnen"
> But it's running on a different server. How is the "unrar-server" different
> from an icq server? The unrar-client would be free software.
The value of an ICQ server with a singular user is pretty low. The
value there lies not in the software itself, but the network effe
On 2017-08-28 at 07:59, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:31:15PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> The existence of that API in the form of the client is a
>> documentation that should be sufficient to reproduce a server that
>> can communicate with the client. Do we expect that som
Thanks Philipp, unlike the mail I responded to a few minutes ago, yours is
constructive and I'm happy to continue discussing this with you.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:31:15PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 08/27/2017 12:20 PM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 06:21:23PM +0200, Ph
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:46:16AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > > > Are you saying that a Debian system where only main is enabled is
> > > > > unsafe?
> > > > [...]
> > > > > If that is correct, it is a huge problem that that is the default
> > > > > setup
> > > > > we ship, don't you thin
I'm getting tired of this. You keep avoiding my questions and changing the
subject. Unless you start answering my questions, I'm going to stop
responding.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:21:01PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:55:43AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > >
On 08/27/2017 12:20 PM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 06:21:23PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 08/18/2017 10:36 AM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
>>> Consider the following: unrar-nonfree contains some software which is
>>> non-free
>>> and can therefore not be in main. The reason we
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:55:43AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > Are you saying that a Debian system where only main is enabled is unsafe?
> > [...]
> > > If that is correct, it is a huge problem that that is the default setup
> > > we ship, don't you think?
> > It is, but solving it most like
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:29:07PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:58:50AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Are you saying that a Debian system where only main is enabled is unsafe?
> [...]
> > If that is correct, it is a huge problem that that is the default setup
> >
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:58:50AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > Let me put it differently then: for me, one of the major benefits of
> > > Debian
> > > over (most of) our derivatives is that I can set the system up in a way
> > > that
> > > allows me to live in a free software bubble.
> >
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 04:00:54PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:20:27AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Let me put it differently then: for me, one of the major benefits of Debian
> > over (most of) our derivatives is that I can set the system up in a way that
> >
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:20:27AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Let me put it differently then: for me, one of the major benefits of Debian
> over (most of) our derivatives is that I can set the system up in a way that
> allows me to live in a free software bubble.
So you don't update the non-f
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 06:21:23PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 10:36 AM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Consider the following: unrar-nonfree contains some software which is
> > non-free
> > and can therefore not be in main. The reason we don't put it in main is
> > that
> > we want us
On 08/18/2017 10:36 AM, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Consider the following: unrar-nonfree contains some software which is non-free
> and can therefore not be in main. The reason we don't put it in main is that
> we want users who care about freedom to not even see this software. Agreed?
Ex falso quo
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:46:43AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The language is clear that it is talking about dependency in the sense
> of requiring the program installed on the system in order for the
> program to build or execute.
I think the mention of package dependencies is an incomplete list
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> I'm referring to policy 2.2, which lists what software belongs in main
> and what belongs in contrib. While this is not voted on and it does
> not follow directly from the SC, I thought there was agreement that
> what's in Policy 2.2 is a good way to determine where sof
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:58:00AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
>
> > What seems to be the dispute is whether software that runs on a remote
> > system is still "software" for the purpose of our rules.
>
> That is not in dispute, it seems to me. The rules of the Debian Pro
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> What seems to be the dispute is whether software that runs on a remote
> system is still "software" for the purpose of our rules.
That is not in dispute, it seems to me. The rules of the Debian Project
can only bind what the Debian Project does.
The Debian Project cou
I fail to see what is the purpose of this thought exercise. Could you first
clearly define the problem/goal/... and only then start finding solutions?
Ondřej
On 12 August 2017 09:19:51 "Dr. Bas Wijnen" wrote:
Note: this post is not about certspotter at all, so I'm not Cc'ing the bug and
cha
On Aug 12, "Dr. Bas Wijnen" wrote:
> Which would be a great example of software that is free interacting with
> software that is non-free. Thus the package with this as its main purpose
> should live in contrib. There's nothing wrong with that.
There is no such requirement for Debian packages a
On 2017-08-12 17:51:49 +0200 (+0200), Simon Richter wrote:
> On 12.08.2017 09:19, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > (Note: I'm not saying s3cmd must be in contrib. It can work with
> > free servers, so it can be in main.)
>
> It can be in main as soon as a free server exists, I think.
Not that I've perso
Hi,
On 12.08.2017 09:19, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> (Note: I'm not saying s3cmd must be in contrib. It can work with free
> servers,
> so it can be in main.)
It can be in main as soon as a free server exists, I think.
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Note: this post is not about certspotter at all, so I'm not Cc'ing the bug and
changed the Subject line.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:30:19PM -0400, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Stuff like s3cmd are tools connecting to cloud services. Arguably
> usable to have tools to free data from the clouds.
Whi
37 matches
Mail list logo
