Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:01:40PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
If we want to change our foundation documents, and remove the
awoval to the concept of being 100% free, or to say that Debian, and
thus the parts of Debian covered by the DFSG, are just the binary bits,
then we
Hi Charles,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:03:00AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
operating system. It is controversial.
I would like to say, for the record, that I believe you've lost track of
what lives in Debian if you claim
On 03/23/2010 11:03 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
operating
system. It is controversial.
To some of us, the Debian operating system is at least as much about
the packaged source as it is about the packaged binaries.
If you
So, since part of the reason that I joined the race was to make sure it
wouldn't get too boring, I was hoping there'd be a bit more life on this
list. Since there isn't, allow me to ask a few questions myself.
Oh, and before anyone asks: hey, I can vote too, and we have a Condorcet
voting system.
Hi Wouter--
You probably didn't mean to have this to come out this way, but:
On 03/23/2010 01:49 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Charles:
In your platform, in the Program section, you mention four ideas that
could reasonable be described as being about the things that,
respectively, the DAM and
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
operating system. It is controversial. Despite it does not change our
fundation documents, I think that a GR would be needed to make sure that
there is a general agreement.
For
The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
operating
system. It is controversial.
It is a lot but not controversial, actually its pretty clear.
For that statement alone *I* hope NOTA will have a big win over you,
sorry. It shows you are way off with actual project.
I think that one of issues we have is that there is alot of work
to be done by some teams, some of them even regularaly mail that
they need more members, but they seem to have a hard time keeping
the numbers up, burning the other team members out.
What are your ideas to make sure those teams keep
Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:01PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
Our users includes not only an individual with a single computer who
never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
modify the source
Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:03:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
For whatever it's worth, I believe the second option changes the
foundation documents and would require a 3:1 majority. The person who's
canonical on that is the Secretary.
Dear Russ, Stefano, Wouter and Margarita.
I would
Very interesting thread.
== In short ==
tarballs must be redistributable, unpacked debian source package
should be DFSG-free, debian binary package must be DFSG-free.
== Long ==
1. Upstream tarball is not debian source
Cause you cannot build/run/understand anything if you just have a
bunch of
Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com writes:
2. If tarball is not redistributable
It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable
I think people are missing the degree of complexity in this. For
instance, files included the source tarball that aren't used by the
Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 06:49:51PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Charles:
In your platform, in the Program section, you mention four ideas that
could reasonable be described as being about the things that,
respectively, the DAM and NM frontdesk, the ftp-masters, and the Release
13 matches
Mail list logo
