> "Tiago" == Tiago Bortoletto Vaz writes:
Tiago> Hi Jose,
Tiago> Thanks for you input, I have a few comments:
Tiago> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:02:47AM -0300, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote:
>> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 9:21 PM -03, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>> > Right, note that
> "Dominik" == Dominik George writes:
Dominik> Generative AI tools **produce** derivatives of other people's
copyrighted works.
Dominik> That said, we already have the necessary policies in place:
Russ pointed out this is a fairly complicated claim.
It is absolutely true that
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Hi,
Ansgar> On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 14:01 -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>> I would like Debian to discuss and decide on the usage of AI-
>> generated content within the project.
Ansgar> It's just another tool that might or might
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> Alternatively, BTS users that are interested in others
Scott> getting their emails might be better off posting from a
Scott> domain that doesn't have a DMARC policy that's designed to be
Scott> used for domains that send only
> "Daniel" == Daniel Gröber writes:
Daniel> Hi,
Daniel> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 08:48:28AM -0800, Antonio Russo wrote:
>> [...] my personal experience is that making contributions is like
>> dropping a message in a bottle into the sea. It feels like a
>> complete
> "Mouer," == Mouer, Steve writes:
Mouer,> https://www.debian.org/security/crossreferences
Mouer,> Can you please advise if this will be restored and is this
Mouer,> the best place for us to automatically pull this
Mouer,> information?
I'm not involved in Debian security
I tend to generally agree with Russ.
But I wonder if there are things we could do on a technical front
Are there things we could do to remove barriers and get to a point where
we can make salsa a valid contribution channel?
Things like
* Add a way to mirror issues from salsa to github for
I have a proposal.
In writing the below, I realized that we may have reached the point of
diminishing returns, and perhaps we should be done with this discussion.
CONSENSUS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT HERE.
In general, if someone wants to maintain something in Debian, and the
ftp team does not object,
> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez writes:
Roberto> sources." I mean, if you're going to wave the code of
Roberto> conduct around (or Andy in the case of the initial report),
Roberto> then perhaps we ought to distinguish between what the code
Roberto> of conduct was very
> "Roberto" == Roberto A Foglietta writes:
Roberto> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> No. It's entirely possible that using databases as training sets
>> for an AI/ML engine is fair use under existing United States law
>> and precedent as long as
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> To add to this, I'm fairly sure that the companies that are
Russ> training AI models on, say, every piece of text they can find
Russ> on the Internet, or all public GitHub repositories, are going
Russ> to explicitly argue that doing so
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> I would very much prefer explicit sexual content over Nazi
Ansgar> symbols. So let me make a suggestion:
As would I.
If anyone wants to work on the challenges of adult content feel free to
reach out and I'd be happy to spend some of my time on
> "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater writes:
Andrew> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:05:29PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>> [I'm using the pseudonymous respondent's message to reply to
>> Mr. Cater as well. Mind the angle brackets for quotation
>> context.]
>>
>> At
n> "G" == G Branden Robinson writes:
G> Neither you nor he, therefore, is well placed to present a
G> (presumptively neutral) summary of the discussion. (Neither am
G> I.)
Branden, I'd like to push back on the idea that we want a summary from
someone neutral.
If we have that
I call out one area where I think additional discussion is valuable; see
after the underscores.
I'd like to thank Andrew for posting his summary of the discussion.
As I have said over the years, I think such summaries are a critical
part of driving discussions forward.
I didn't ever get a chance
es with what that should be.
Andrew> Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up
Andrew> flaws with the existing categorisations and with a blanket
Andrew> removal based on preference. It's also noticeable that this
Andrew> largely comes down to consideration
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Dowland writes:
Jonathan> Anyone who has a problem with what I did and believes I
Jonathan> should be censured or subject to some other form of
Jonathan> disciplinary process, please just go ahead and do it,
Jonathan> don't beat about the bush.
Hi.
I
> "G" == G Branden Robinson writes:
G> By your metric, so is the Hebrew Bible. For all the slaughter,
G> xenophobia, and ethno-religious supremacism in it, there's some
G> good stuff as well. I find the exasperated jeremiads of some of
G> the later prophets relatable and
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah; the package shouldn't be
Steve> spared from death because you found 5 good fortunes in it.
Steve> This package is a fossilized collection of fortunes that some
Steve> random people on Usenet found funny
> "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater writes:
Andrew> I'm not going to die in a ditch over this but I raised it as
Andrew> a genuine query to the project in good faith and without any
Andrew> agenda.
I appreciate that. I hope my message was received in the spirit of an
answer to the
TL;DR: I think that we need to be significantly more permissive of ideas
expressed in software in our archive, especially for software that
exhibits creative speech, than we do conduct in our community. I do not
think that the Code of Conduct is an appropriate tool for judging
software in
> "Niels" == Niels Thykier writes:
Niels> Indeed - I noted that. :) My answer to Sam's email was due
Niels> how it went into details with why Sam saw the RT as a good
Niels> candidate team for this role and I wanted to present a
Niels> counterargument to Sam's email.
I'd
> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
>> - After the merits and problems of the proposed new projects are
>> discussed, the release team decides which projects are accepted
>> for the next release. (I specifically do not mention what rules
>> the release team should follow in
> "Chuck" == Chuck Zmudzinski writes:
Chuck> Debian processes: AFAIK there is no process for a user to
Chuck> resort to when an important bug has been ignored for over a
Chuck> year except to make some noise on mailing lists like
Chuck> debian-user and debian-project. What
rstanding the problems/challenges
you/they are facing.
I'd like to see if there is anything I can do to help out.
Sam Hartman
Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> Dear Mr. Leader, Congratulations on your re-election as
Felix> Project Leader. I wish you the best for your third term.
Felix> Please accept herewith my resignation as your trademark
Felix> delegate, effective immediately.
Felix,
> "Paul" == Paul Tagliamonte writes:
Paul> Hello, Debianites, Allow me, if you will, to talk a bit about
Paul> something that's been on my mind a bit over the last handful
Paul> of years in Debian. It's something that's pretty widely
Paul> circulated in particular circles,
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> OTOH, I think a DAM warning for a single instance of someone
Scott> losing their temper and calling someone an unfortunate name
Scott> is like ringing a doorbell with a sledge hammer.
I strongly agree. And I understand why it is that
> "Gerardo" == Gerardo Ballabio writes:
Gerardo> Debian is a community that strives to be open, fair and
Gerardo> inclusive. That means that we have made a commitment to
Gerardo> welcome everybody and not exclude anyone without good
Gerardo> reasons.
I agree that Debian has
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
Russ> I dunno, I realize I may be being too cavalier here, but see
Russ> the point above about making more decisions, faster, and
Russ> accepting a few mistakes. If we end up wi
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> Alas, I'll venture that the folks whose opinions you consider
Felix> superior have never been punished.
The word punished implies a framing of the problem I personally reject.
But if for example you'd consider being banned from the BTS a
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
In the interest of full disclosure, I no longer have any affiliation
with DAM.
Felix> With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has
Felix> a long way to go in implementing basic precepts of
Felix> justice. For example, it would
While discussing secret ballots over on debian-vote, we got a little off
topic and started discussing the value of a mechanism to express
agreement/disagreement with messages in a mailing list thread.
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Philip Hands writes:
>> The bit that
> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes:
Paul> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:25 AM Bastian Blank wrote:
>> All Python source is compiled into bytecode during installation.
Paul> Scripts in the bin/ directories are not compiled into
Paul> bytecode, and there are a number of packages that do
> "Manoj" == Manoj Singh writes:
Manoj> Hi Team, For FIPS(federal information processing standards),
Manoj> required all python code in bytecode format(.pyc) instead of
Manoj> plain source .py.
NIST publishes a lot of FIPS documents.
Can you please point to the specific version
> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes:
Timo> * Stéphane Glondu [2021-04-16 17:12]:
>> I would be glad to help :-)
Timo> Great!
>>> With all that being said and having made my case, I am open for
>>> any reasonably secure solution (including Belenios) that we can
>>> agree
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve, I'm writing to confirm understanding of our disagreement and to
acknowledge the point you made and explain why it is not persuasive to
me. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, simply letting
you know I've considered what you have to
> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes:
Timo> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [2021-04-13 11:19]:
>> I would rather not reserve any DEP for this right now. We
>> actually don't really know if any space for DEP text regarding
>> secret voting will be left out. The voting procedure is
>>
> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre writes:
Steve> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:30:21PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
Steve> Umm. Our diversity statement and CoC define agreed
Steve> expectations of behaviour and communication within the
Steve> project; people espousing fascist
> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
I wrote a long post talking about an approach for possibly balancing
these trade offs in Debian.
Just my ideas, but perhaps reasonably well thought out.
Then I realized that now is not the time to send that post.
If in a month or so when things are
> "Martin" == Martin Steigerwald writes:
Martin> I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think
Martin> the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent
Martin> communication.
Martin> Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for
> "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle writes:
Eldon> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Eldon> I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about
Eldon> English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have
Eldon> not seen this class of words used constructively in lists,
> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
Thomas> The point is: is there some restrictions on political views
Thomas> that the Debian community/project would like to enforce?
Yes, I think this is a topic worth discussing.
There has been a motion in the free software community to focus
I wasn't thrilled with Steve's message; I sent him what I hope are some
constructive comments privately.
Bringing up nazis is rarely going to calm things down or promote
constructive discussion.
And yes, he did that.
But Adrian! You really doubled down on the tension.
I appreciate that you
> "Dominik" == Dominik George writes:
Dominik> With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by
Dominik> Richard Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively
Dominik> affected by his views — every single such person has to be
Dominik> heard, their fears and
> "Mark" == Mark Pearson writes:
Mark> It's just a case of needing the libfprint and fprintd packages
Mark> installed and then under settings->user you can start
Mark> registering your prints.
Right, and the desktop maintainers could choose to make their desktop
meta packages
> "Mark" == Mark Pearson writes:
Mark> Hi all, Not sure the right forum to raise this - please
Mark> redirect me as appropriate :)
Mark> I was checking Debian on my Lenovo P1 G3 today (using testing
Mark> latest) and figured I'd have another stab at getting the
Mark>
> "Bastian" == Bastian Blank writes:
Bastian> Hi Steve
Bastian> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 03:53:24PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Have people been pushing the other way - to remove the suffix?
>> Just curious.
Bastian> That was me. It's because of the maintenance
For me as someone with a above average memory for these sorts of details
and someone who types URIs into browsers and shells, -team is fie extra
characters to type.
It's also a naming restriction in a place where I'm not used to seeing
naming restrictions onother gitlab sites.
However, I too am
I think it is really important that we find a way to accept funding like
this. I'm fine if we as a community have concerns about the specifics.
But free software isn't supposed to mean developers don't get paid, or
the software doesn't get funded (or even the software itself isn't
expensive
Hi. With respect, I'd like to challenge the idea that integrating more
ways to get funded would undermine some core aspect of Debian.
I think there are two aspects that I consider when I think about the idea
that Debian is not funded by a particular company:
1) Independence. Many people join
I've been thinking about your question about alternate names for the
debian.net team.
Everything I come up with would be confusing with regard to DSA--like
the Debian services team.
Perhaps something like Services Facilitators.
Or just go with debian.net team and be clear in the description
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> I think that this proposal combines two quite different
Lucas> aspects, and that it might be better to keep them separate.
Lucas> 1. Maintaining contacts with infrastructure providers that
Lucas> are willing to help Debian. That's
> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes:
Paul> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:27 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> I'd rather try to solve the issue in a more sensible way : lower
>> the number of expected GPG signatures to 0 temporarily, and ask
>> for two or three advocacies from DDs.
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan McDowell writes:
Jonathan> It's worthwhile stating the actual problem that is trying
Jonathan> to be solved here.
Jonathan> I believe that is: "Given difficulties with keysigning in
Jonathan> the modern environment, what does the project believe is
Enrico, I find that the sorts of discussions that you've started are
more valuable if someone goes back later and tries to summarize what
we've learned.
So I'm going to take a stab at that.
I don't think we were seeking a consensus, and we didn't find one. What
we did find is a number of
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> Sam, you accused Olek of derailing the situation, which
Holger> (AFAICS) he disagrees with, and now you are "offering" to
Holger> solve this problem by Olek investing more time to solve a
Holger> problem that doesnt also in my book
> "Olek" == Olek Wojnar writes:
Olek>Sam, I do not appreciate your aspersions and I think your
Hi.
It sounds like you are hearing me as disagreeing with *you* and not with
some combination of your ideas and how they are presented.
I'd like to offer to sit down virtually and work
> "Olek" == Olek Wojnar writes:
> TL;DR: While there may be improvements to be found in a
> completely different approach to identity, let us not let the
> scope of the discussion broaden that far, so we can make
> progress today.
Olek>I respectful disagree on this point. This
TL;DR: While there may be improvements to be found in a completely
different approach to identity, let us not let the scope of the
discussion broaden that far, so we can make progress today.
> "Olek" == Olek Wojnar writes:
Olek> TL;DR: I think without some link back to real world
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Jonas> I feel that you are somewhat quoting me out of context:
Jonas> For the record, I do *not* find "several months of [remote]
Jonas> collaboration" adequate for trusting an identity. I simply
Jonas> repeated that criterium from the
tive reputation
and
2) That it would be costly for them to burn that reputation to maount
an attack.
In this model the advantage of trying to tie a key back to a real-world
identity is that we only get one of those.
No matter how much good work I do in the future, I cannot escape a
betrayal of tr
Hi.
While DPL, I established a relationship with a GDPR lawyer to help the
data protection team and myself with some questions.
They forwarded along the following information about a new guide for
GDPR implications for developers.
The data protection team members were also copied.
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes:
Michael> On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:13:24 -0400
Michael> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Unfortunately, being a member of Debian, I find myself getting
>> stuck in the details and think yo
Hi.
I've reviewed most of the spec you point to on salsa.
I think you might be getting some of the details before the basic
principles.
I agree with the principles you state, but would probably state them
differently:
* Incremental review is valuable and is likely to improve our processes
*
In my last bits mail I talked about two sets of messages from Russ. The
first talks about the importance of actually leaving room for
disagreement.
THe second talks about hostility in handling new proposals.
Here are pointers.
Russ's Debian vote messages were:
[9]:
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> Sam,
Scott> I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why
Scott> another service section at the end.
Scott> Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian"
Scott> camp and I see my concerns
Absolutely, the DPL, or DAM, or others may forward to the CT.
That would count as it being directed their way.
TL;DR: As Tina points out, this delegation does not accomplish
everything. It is an incremental step forward, one of many we've taken
this last year. Tina brings up a number of points where there might be
value in revising text if we get the support to do so. I welcome such
proposals for
> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov writes:
Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone
Ihor> should make their own.
I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you
it has gotten long.
A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue
I'd like to echo the comment that requiring people to regularly visit
the site does not seem to meet Debian's needs very well for trust.
I'd imagine there are a number of people in our community who will tend
to read things via email, but who would only visit the site to help
moderate--splitting
Martin, Neil has said that he wants to put his effort into Discourse.
It sounds like you'd try something else.
I'll admit to wanting to see an attempt at mailman3 or something like
that but not having the energy to put into it.
I wonder if you or some of the people who would like to try something
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Palfrader writes:
Peter> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Filipozzi writes:
>>
Luca> This is why having a central approach to account creation,
Luca>
AS I understand it the only open issue preventing a delegation is the
following; we need to find wording that makes it clear you can write to
parties other than the CT.
> >> * To respond to concerns raised by members of the project or
> >> people interacting with them, working with
> "Luca" == Luca Filipozzi writes:
Luca> This is why having a central approach to account creation,
Luca> rather than distributed, is worth considering. I'm in favour
Luca> of usernames not changing because one's role changes but that
Luca> does not mean I'm favour of
ture
over the years.
Independently of Enrico's proposal, and unremarked by everyone who is in
this discussion, debian.social has adopted the same strategy.
Even if nm.debian.org, contributors.debian.org and sso.debian.org were
not going to use salsa, we'd already have salsa being used as a sso
soluti
> "Julien" == Julien Cristau writes:
Julien> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
Julien> f...@salsa.debian.org and f...@debian.org both existing and
Julien> referring to different people risks causing confusion. I'd
Julien> like to
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Luca Filipozzi writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:48:22AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> * Note that if you want to you can host accounts in gitlab and
>>> have keycloak act as an
Hi. Speaking very much as an individual.
I just spoke to someone who runs a keycloak and gitlab instance for a
group of about 1000 users.
I wanted to inject their experience into the discussion, because having
operational experience is useful in such situations.
* The thing they like about
TL;DR: The concern Scott raises is a good one, and I think he caught me
out on a wording problem in the delegation text.
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> Constitution 5.1.4 give the DPL the power to "Make any
Scott> decision for whom noone else has responsibility." Some
> "Luca" == Luca Filipozzi writes:
[All my statements in this thread have been as an individual, not as
DPL. I've offered to help Enrico facilitate consensus calling in this
discussion, and if he takes me up on that, such facilitation might not
entirely be separable from the DPL role when
Sigh.
I propose delegating the following developers as members of the
Community Team.:
> - Pierre-Elliott Bécue (peb)
> - Luke Faraone (lfaraone)
> - Steve McIntyre (93sam)
> - Jean-Philippe Mengual (jpmengual)
Sigh.
Steve pointed out that I left off a name in review comments and I missed
I'm pleased to finally be able to propose a Community Team delegation
for discussion. During the last year it has become clear that we can
accomplish more at lower emotional cost when we have the Community Team,
Account Managers and DPL working together, supporting each other. It's
become
> "Tollef" == Tollef Fog Heen writes:
Tollef> ]] Enrico Zini
>> For guest accounts opened by DSA directly, it can be pretty much
First, at this point in time I would be very skepticle of someone
contributing to Debian enough to need porter box access but not having a
salsa account.
> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini writes:
Enrico> I agree that with the current proposal, the use case of
Enrico> "grant a person permission based on their status, which is
Enrico> somehow revoked or blocked if the status goes away" becomes
Enrico> something we might not be able to
> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini writes:
Enrico> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:45:32PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
>> Sigh, but it makes sense too. Will nm.d.o have a field which
>> reflects the username on salsa?
Enrico> It finally will, yes! \o/
Enrico> It's been quite painful
TL;DR: In Enrico's terms I'm an ACK not a NACK. I'm also trying to help
people considering whether they have blocking objections think about the
problems actually facing Debian.
I'm noticing a bit of a conflict here between people who are familiar
with Debian and people who are familiar with
> "Xavier" == Xavier writes:
Xavier> Le 07/04/2020 à 17:20, Paul Wise a écrit :
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:58 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
>>
>>> ## Highlevel plan
>>
>> I'd like to learn a bit about what the effects for Debian account
>> holders and service admins
> "Neil" == Neil McGovern writes:
Neil> I think my point is that we should strive to reach the point
Neil> where it's not inevitable, and that our reality can change. It
Neil> should never be the case that making a hard decision leads to
Neil> abusive messages, and I believe
TL;DR: I decided to ban someone from the project completely. Members of
ftpmaster, DAM, and the community team all agree. The person had
already been banned from our lists and expelled from the project as a
developer. This is an explanation of how that decision fits with our
constitution. If
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 12:35 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Sam" == Sam Hartman hartmans.debian@protonmail.com writes:
>
> Sam> I hereby appoint everybody who was harassed by the
>
> Sam> Anti-Hara
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam>I hereby appoint everybody who was harassed by the
Sam> Anti-Harassment team to be the new Anti-Anti-Harassment team
For the avoidance of doubt, the mail I am replying to was forged and was
not sent by me.
I hereby appoint everybody who was harassed by the Anti-Harassment team to be
the new Anti-Anti-Harassment team
If the Anti-Harassment team backstabs you, the Anti-Anti-Harassment team is on
your side.
Now everybody will feel safe somewhere in Debian but maybe not everywhere at
once
Sent
hi.
Just before I went on vacation, the trademark team let me know that they
need more energy.
That team involves:
1) Answering questions about use of our trademark
2) Following up on infringement of our trademark.
3) Working with the DPL to decide on whether proposed uses of our
I've just returned from vacation and taken a couple of hours to catch up
on mail I missed.
It was nice to be entirely without email for a week.
During that week, there was a discussion on debian-private about how to
handle abuse and harassing email both on debian-project and in general.
The
[This will be my last message on this thread.
I go away on vacation tomorrow.]
> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
Didier> The crux of my strong disagreement is here: as DPL, you just
Didier> _framed_ the Montreal miniDebConf as a protest.
This is a case where perception
> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
still saying "one way is to withdraw your budget
Didier> request (…); if that is not your choice, I _ask_ you to find
Didier> some other way". So what happens if they put your request to
Didier> /dev/null, if you're not withdrawing the
for the
volunteers putting on DebConf 20. Your contributions to the Debian
community are greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your understanding and hard work.
Thanks for your Consideration,
Sam Hartman
Debian Project Leader
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> "Jerome" == Jerome Charaoui writes:
Jerome> Following the announcement of the DebConf20 location, our
Jerome> desire to participate became incompatible with our
Jerome> commitment toward the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Jerome> (BDS) campaign launched by Palestinian
You are of course welcome to download Debian and use it under the
conditions of the licenses for the various components of Debian.
License compliance is a complex field and for any mass-produced
commercial product you're going to need to retain the services of a
professional qualified in that
1 - 100 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
