On 2004-01-05 17:48:50 + Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
We have a commitment
to maintain it as long as it is needed (social contract) and we should
abide by that commitment; not chop and change for ideological reasons.
What is the temporal scope of our social contract? Current and
On 2004-01-05 14:19:02 + Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type
packages to
use.
/usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers
(It's already there, and has been for a while)
Near the end, it suggests not doing it that way.
Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in
another thread. It's all process rather than the issue. I'll not reply
on-list like this again, but I wanted to put one example in public and
hope people draw the correct conclusion about the other threads I
ignore. Sorry
On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really
almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where
not
even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...]
The discussion on
On 2004-01-06 09:33:51 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok, so then, please someone write a nice software ADSL library, so my
unicorn ADSL modem driver can go in main.
Asking for it is a start, but maybe this should be done more visibly
than an email to debian-vote. There may be
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But our non-free includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
calls
semi-free software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
There is no reason for the FDL-related debate what is software? to
appear in this thread.
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to
get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such
software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal
if there were reasonable
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
measurements. You have elected to provide none
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But our non-free includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
calls
semi-free software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
There is no reason for the FDL-related debate what is software? to
appear in this
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to
get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such
software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal
if there were
On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your
level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the
proposal is less appealing by the moment.
Here is the you don't use these non-free
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
measurements. You have elected to provide
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. [...]
none of them would be significantly simpler
or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
I disagree with your
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
from it.
Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
sucks up
time and energy of
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are
actually
complete enough, however, or stable enough.
Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
Debian don't support the free
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To summarise: i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
not
To summarise: I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make
it a pain in the
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
needs
to be changed?
No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing removing non-free
from Debian when the proposal is to cease active support and
related
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree with your choice of significantly.
That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the
BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that
would back up any opinion you might have on
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are
actually
complete enough, however, or stable enough.
Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
Debian don't support the free
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. [...]
none of them would be significantly simpler
or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
I disagree with
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To summarise: i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
not
To summarise: I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make
it a pain in
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
from it.
Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
sucks up
time and
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
I disagree with your choice of significantly.
That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the
BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that
would back up any opinion you might
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
needs
to be changed?
No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing removing non-free
from Debian when the proposal is to cease active support and
On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that
infrastructure,
I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract,
but I do not like your drop it on the floor approach to this issue.
Why does the
On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
mean losing much of the current Java support.
I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
Is that correct? If so, why aren't those
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
not willing to solve their problems.
Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support non-free
helping to prevent the problems from being solved?
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
infrastructures
behind Debian non-free can be currently duplicated somewhere else.
Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before it
is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it seems your messages
confused me.
--
To
On 2004-01-02 20:08:33 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg1.html?
Dunno. I'm not at my connected machine when writing this. If it is the
list of Java packages, then yes.
Your 2:36PM followup to that
On 2004-01-02 20:44:51 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to be more specific before what you say here has any weight.
some Java systems? Do you even know what these are, or whether they
even support Java well enough to deal with Tomcat or ant or any other
serious,
On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that
infrastructure,
I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract,
but I do not like your drop it on the floor approach to this issue.
Why does the
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
not willing to solve their problems.
Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support non-free
helping to prevent the problems from being solved?
On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
mean losing much of the current Java support.
I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
Is that correct? If so, why aren't those
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
infrastructures
behind Debian non-free can be currently duplicated somewhere else.
Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before it
is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it seems your messages
confused me.
On 2004-01-02 20:08:33 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg1.html?
Dunno. I'm not at my connected machine when writing this. If it is the
list of Java packages, then yes.
Your 2:36PM followup
On 2004-01-02 20:44:51 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to be more specific before what you say here has any weight.
some Java systems? Do you even know what these are, or whether they
even support Java well enough to deal with Tomcat or ant or any other
serious,
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but does
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively, maybe people could second the
draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
hypothetical if I were... to give Branden something to think about.
(For off-line
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively, maybe people could second the
draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a
hypothetical if I were... to give Branden something to think about.
(For off-line
On 2003-10-31 06:17:28 + Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) Further clean up the software|work conflation, and replace 'run'
with 'use' or 'be used' and software with 'works' and/or 'software and
other works'
Using software and other works either has redundancy or apparently
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned
understanding of the term software, empirical evidence seems to
indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this
Maybe you should
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned
understanding of the term software, empirical evidence seems to
indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this
Maybe you should
I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many
things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation
(rationale point 2) and most of the editorial changes, but violently
disagree with changing the use of software from its true meaning to
something
I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many
things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation
(rationale point 2) and most of the editorial changes, but violently
disagree with changing the use of software from its true meaning to
something
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction
601 - 648 of 648 matches
Mail list logo
