Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If even yourself are not able to understand it, and thus gives bogus advice, i
guess you will find nobody.
Sven Luther
Maybe the reason the now proper advice wasn't given to you was that
the feature did not exist back when you asked?
Or you asked the
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:03:08AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If even yourself are not able to understand it, and thus gives bogus
advice, i
guess you will find nobody.
Sven Luther
Maybe the reason the now proper advice wasn't given to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 07:14:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Moving the problem from A to B. Doesn't matter what svn repository it
is in.
Yes, it does matter. If it is inside kernel-wedge, you need to upload kernel
wedge to benefit from any
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 02:26:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ramdisk package list has no support for per-flavour module selection, and
you
have to end up with stuff like the netboot64 list, which has as sole
usage to
add the ibm power hypervisor and
maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:53:48PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it an aggregation with the image linked into the binary?
It doesn't matter for Debian's purposes.
While the GPL permits
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:47:13AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The whole concept is of an extreme fragility, prone to break again and
again,
cause lot of work for all involved, who become irritable, and bash on you
when
you even mention it.
I did it when working on the amd64
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:53:48PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it an aggregation with the image linked into the binary?
It doesn't matter for Debian's purposes.
While the GPL permits shipping a GPL'd program merely aggregated
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:39:18 +0200 maximilian attems wrote:
stop abusing debian-kernel, this thread is pointless.
I disagree.
Thanks especially to Goswin and Sven for your honest attempt at
reaching a common understanding in these matters. It is certainly
relevant, and although all the
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 04:01:12AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Compare it to including a hexdump of an image or sound in a header
file and including that in the binary. And
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, now that we agreed that those modules need to go into non-free, but that
provided their licence is clear enough, like in the tg3 case, they are indeed
distriutable in non-free, let's go back to the initial point.
This is upstream work, and work which
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
ramdisk package list has no support for per-flavour module selection, and
you
have to end up with stuff like the netboot64 list, which has as sole usage
to
add the ibm power hypervisor and virtualization modules, all an ugly mess.
Something to improve. No
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 07:14:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:47:13AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The whole concept is of an extreme fragility, prone to break again and
again,
cause lot of work for all
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:46:18AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:40:44 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
So, if you like to be around with people with total lack of human
decency, then you should accept when they are criticized for it.
And/or you should stop repeating yourself.
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.:
CC limited to debian-kernel as this isn't for release anymore.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:46:18AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
And actualy just recently the first one was uploaded to non-free
including udebs:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 03:13:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
CC limited to debian-kernel as this isn't for release anymore.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 12:46:18AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
And actualy just recently the first one was
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 07:46:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What for? The installer always needs the installer udebs. Having the
kernel udebs in another section just means more files to generate and
to download that can go wrong. It saves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
mere
aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
non-free firmware will never run
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:32:54PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Indeed. The proposal to split the packages file in a per flavour kernel
repository comes directly from the need to counterbalance this augmentation
of
the number of packages.
So instead of having 5 module udebs for
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
mere
aggregation of works inside the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:32:54PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Indeed. The proposal to split the packages file in a per flavour kernel
repository comes directly from the need to counterbalance this
augmentation of
the number of packages.
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it an aggregation with the image linked into the binary?
It doesn't matter for Debian's purposes.
While the GPL permits shipping a GPL'd program merely aggregated
alongside a non-free program, we don't ship the nonfree part no matter
what, so
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:03:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Compare it to including a hexdump of an image or sound in a header
file and including that in the binary. And compare it with having that
same image or sound as external file shipped in
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has
little to do with Debian main. It is a problem for the linux upostream
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:29:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I apologize for responding to Marco's post; in retrospect he was clearly
trolling and I should not have responded to him.
The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
timeline is unrealistic, because
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[snip]
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing is grossly out-of-date, but I
will integrate the relevant information from that in the process.
KernelFirmwareLicensing is supposed to track information about
mis-licensed firmware. IIRC you mentioned to have found at
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:12:48PM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote:
On 08/08/06 04:49:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
thought like some here
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:51:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) it is lot of work, and we (the kernel team) don't realy have the
ressources
for it.
Then stop doing 0 day uploads and fix the kernel. No matter how long
it takes. It is
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you are still
in trouble.
Sure, the DFSG says that we need the source code for those, and
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:51:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which would be a task for the debian-cd team. Has anyone talk to them
about it?
Currently there is no infrastructure to build non-free d-i
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And even for an aggregation of works the DFSG holds and you are still
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
timeline is unrealistic, because I see no progress on removing the
substantial number of sourceless binaries from the Linux kernel source
package, and it's *after* the kernel was
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:50:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:51:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which would be a task for the debian-cd team. Has anyone talk to them
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:52PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not familiar enough with how library are run, but there is some very
different way in which libraries called by programs work, and the way
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where people buy their hardware or how free their hardware is has
little to do with Debian main. It is a problem for the linux upostream
authors to support the hardware with free
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't lose track of the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong
with a sourceless binary if that's all the source anyone *has*.
I think in most of the cases under consideration, we have firmware
which a hardware manufacturer wrote and then
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:49:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
thought like some here are proposing.
In my opinion, we have been screwing our users for years by lying to
them
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:12:48PM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote:
On 08/08/06 04:49:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
thought like some here are proposing.
In my opinion, we have
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) either move the individual affected drivers or just their firmware if
possible to non-free, and keep the cripled kernel in main.
This is certainly the last resort, in my opinion, but it isn't
crippled. Merely not supporting particular pieces of
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing procedures.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:57:36AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) either move the individual affected drivers or just their firmware if
possible to non-free, and keep the cripled kernel in main.
This is certainly the last resort, in my
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope, the issue only surfaced early after the sarge release, a bit
less than a year ago, when the new kernel team formed.
It was discussed *before* sarge was released that there was non-free
firmware in the kernel, and we decided to ignore it for the sarge
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
We do not need a
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:01:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nope, the issue only surfaced early after the sarge release, a bit
less than a year ago, when the new kernel team formed.
It was discussed *before* sarge was released that there was
Hallo,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We can simply take our time to do (2). It is the job of a package
maintainer to check the licenses of their software; if the kernel team
cannot do so by December, even with help, I don't mind waiting.
then, please,
On 08/02/06 22:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Start with drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h. This is distributable, because it's
under
a BSD license, but it's not free software, because there's no source code.
There is no source code, because there never was any source code.
What do you think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/06 22:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Start with drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h. This is distributable, because
it's under
a BSD license, but it's not free software, because there's no source code.
There is no source code, because there never was any source code.
I apologize for responding to Marco's post; in retrospect he was clearly
trolling and I should not have responded to him.
The point of my initial message was not to argue: it was that the etch
timeline is unrealistic, because I see no progress on removing the
substantial number of sourceless
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:49:32AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community.
We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the
needs of our users for operation in many
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
thought like some here are proposing.
In my opinion, we have been screwing our users for years by lying to
them about whether their software was free. We would even say things
like hardware
On 08/08/06 04:49:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it reads to me that we won't screw our users without second
thought like some here are proposing.
In my opinion, we have been screwing our users for years by lying to
them about whether
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 04:50:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk take
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done, and
evne if we did, the deficiencies of d-i will make the work we do
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
These are fine words, but how do you think they can translate into reality ?
We don't currently have the ressources to do it the way it should be done,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
team
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
mere
aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
non-free firmware will never run inside the same memory space as the kernel,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are a
mere
aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary file. Those
non-free
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but are
a mere
aggregation of works inside the same media, i.e. the binary
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:24:12PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because those are not linked together with the GPLed code, but
are a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
i.e. screwing our users.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
i.e. screwing our users.
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
Users.
Now think about why we do not do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
Users.
Now think about why we do not do it.
It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
reasons. We
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think about why we do not do it.
It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
Social Contract, which says that We Do Not Distribute Non-Free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think about why we do not do it.
It does not matter. Different members of Debian have different
reasons. We have all agreed to work together on the basis of the
Social Contract, which
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
untruth in what i said above, or in the other mail ?
Yes. There is the option of simply not supporting installation on the
devices in question.
Yeah, well, sure there is, but
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software No Matter How Much It Helps Our
Users.
Now think about why we do not do it.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:49:32AM +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 08, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We Do Not Distribute Non-Free Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation
On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
me to ignore the opinion of the
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:21:32PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
team
I had such a plan, but no time to
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In linux.debian.kernel Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real issue here is one of freedom and DFSG and not one of legality anyway.
Those firmware are not DFSG-free and have nothing to do in main, and this is
the real problem.
They were not a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Danchev wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 17:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.kernel Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
true or at least do not consider it a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, i don't believe there is much choice left to the kernel team in
this issue but to ask for a waiver of the DFSG compliance for the
kernel for etch, and hope the d-i folk take their responsabilities a
bit more seriously for the etch+1 release.
Or, the
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 02:22:18AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
team
I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
How do you handle the fact that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
We already know that the lawyers of SuSE and Red
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I became a developer long before the NM process was created, and I
agreed to follow the unclarified social contract.
Are you unwilling to follow the current Social Contract? If so, you
should resign, and yesterday.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can be done about this?
Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
This is unproven.
It is also
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation making the
thing illegal to distribute?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
How do you handle the fact that it
In linux.debian.kernel Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can be done about this?
Accept that most people do not consider this a problem?
First of all, this is false. Most Debian developers agree with me. You
think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release
86 matches
Mail list logo
