On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:49:56 -0400
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Neil" == Neil Williams writes:
> >> > * The point of having the source code (with an appropriate
> >> licence > etc.) is so that all our contributors, downstreams,
> >> and
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2"):
> [stuff]
There is much that you've said that I don't necessarily disagree with,
but:
> Part of having good governance is to have those discussions on devel.
The problem isn't having the discussi
> "Neil" == Neil Williams writes:
>> > * The point of having the source code (with an appropriate
>> licence > etc.) is so that all our contributors, downstreams, and
>> users are > able to modify the code and to share their
>> modifications with each >
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> I would like to comment briefly on the general idea about the
Ian> TC offering advice and making statements of opinion.
Ian> If someone in authority in the project, such as a maintainer of
Ian> the
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 23:45:01 +0530
Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On 2016, ജൂലൈ 15 10:46:51 PM IST, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> >Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG
> >2"):
> >> Speaking as an individual TC member,
Pirate Praveen writes:
...
>> * For Debian, therefore, the source code for a file or program is the
>> form which can be conveniently modified and shared; specifically,
>> the form in which upstream will accept patches.
>
> This was never the intention of dfsg, it
On 2016, ജൂലൈ 15 10:46:51 PM IST, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2"):
>> Speaking as an individual TC member, here's my personal reading of
>the
>> TC discussion.
>>
>> It's not clear that the TC is the
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2"):
> I would like to comment briefly
I'm sorry that I so evidently failed !
Ian.
Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#830978: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2"):
> Speaking as an individual TC member, here's my personal reading of the
> TC discussion.
>
> It's not clear that the TC is the right body for this discussion. We
> certainly could offer advice, but it's not clear that the
Hi.
Speaking as an individual TC member, here's my personal reading of the
TC discussion.
It's not clear that the TC is the right body for this discussion. We
certainly could offer advice, but it's not clear that the ftpmasters or
release team--the parties most likely to need such advice--
Hi,
On 13/07/16 17:43, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> However, here we're asked to give advice on whether something is
>> source code. Is the question of what is the source code for a given
>> package technical, and thus within our remit?
>
> I think that's a
11 matches
Mail list logo