On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
bother. Now they should bother.
Where was this said?
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
priority between now and the release?
I believe that
[ Disclaimer: I supposedly have CVS access, last I was told, and I]
[ certainly do most of the work to ensure that GCC will work on the ]
[ proto-port to NetBSD; apart from that, and reading both debian-gcc ]
[ and debian-legal, you probably have to ask Matthias Klose for a
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it
ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These
documents are not going to become free in the
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than
anyone else is. If you must point a finger at
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so
they won't be any better off.
And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if
they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case, I
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
bother. Now they should bother.
Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these
bugs will not be
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
right now? The release manager isn't deciding that any more than
anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at
the package
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:22:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well,
as
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Branden Robinson writes:
There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
seldom bothers with such things. We go
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
manuals out now.
I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
statements.
I hope
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote:
My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the
GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our
developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with
things like doxygen-generated libstdc++
On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as official
[...]
Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?
[...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.
Don't they
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Hi,
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social
Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that
develops upon
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well,
as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. It ain't
18 matches
Mail list logo
