simon.rich...@hogyros.de wrote:
>If Debian provides an installer image, but does not at the same time
>promise to have vetted all applicable licenses against a list of
>criteria that is acceptable to the legal department, this installer
>image becomes close to useless to corporate users.
I
s...@debian.org wrote:
>Free installer:
>
> - will not work with some hardware
This is a bit more complex than that. The current installer is insecure
for all systems which use Intel and AMD CPUs (i.e., with very good
approximation, almost all of them), because microcode updates provide
b...@debian.org wrote:
>I can personally vouch for the fact that RMS can be very difficult. He
Thank you for this contribute.
--
ciao,
Marco
andr...@fatal.se wrote:
>I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that while I might not
>have thought exactly the same as you in every detail I very much
>appreciate that you've tried to actually show leadership during
>your time as DPL (rather than just being a passive spokesperson for the
guil...@debian.org wrote:
> * The traditional-only way camp: This group outright rejects things
> like systemd, and other similar technologies. Some of this group was
> part of Debian in the past, but found a new home in Devuan. People
I read all my emails with mutt (which I used to maintain)
lu...@debian.org wrote:
>In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
>a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
I agree.
>Concern about length of proposal D
>==
>
>I am a bit concerned about the length of proposal D,
la...@debian.org wrote:
>May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
>throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
>it being subject to a plebiscite?
I fully agree.
Also, it is not acceptable for a small minority to frame the whole
debate in the terms
j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com wrote:
... which is the result if one has one's eyes tightly shut. User space
replacements for Linux and BSD kernel virtual terminals have already
existed, and been written, for years. There's a whole non-Anglophone
I am not an expert of this issue,
goli...@riseup.net wrote:
I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could
http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
Thank you for your contribute. Next!
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
r...@debian.org wrote:
Also, adopting systemd has been far from easy. Just ask the systemd
maintenance team in Debian, who I am sure are seriously questioning why
they ever wanted to be the default init system right about now given all
the work it entails!
Not really, I want that because it is
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
I don't want to be having this conversation again in a year's time,
And still, I am ready to bet that we will...
with those upstreams and their like-minded Debian contributors saying
things like `it is too late now; the world has moved on'.
It is *already*
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over
individual systemd dependencies.
This looks like a great way to encourage people to make systemd
mandatory just to be done with this once and for all... :-)
That's not the problem. The
On Oct 26, Flavius Bindea f...@flav.com wrote:
if systemd is goinging to be the default I'll switch to another distrib.
systemd is already the default and it will still be the default no
matter the outcome of this GR, which is about something else.
maybe to a fork.
Cool. Debian encourages
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
This is incredible, 90+ postings are from the pro systemd people. Are
you afraid of something? Where do the other side of view speak up. Seems
Indeed, it looks like that systemd users are seriously underrepresented
in these threads:
aigar...@debian.org wrote:
To be frank, in cases like logind I would expect the logind binary
package to be split out and its source patched in such a way to allow
it to work without systemd running (however badly) and moving the main
systemd package from Dependencies to Recommended.
It is quite
Seconded.
On Oct 17, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote:
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore
f...@zz.de wrote:
for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and by
something
as controversal as the systemd stuff.
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributions I
would
On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about?
Probably because you appear to be in the middle of it...
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Since in practice there is only one hegemonic init system, this is
sufficient to ensure our commitment to diversity.
Is this pluralis maiestatis?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
In linux.debian.project Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
For me the answer is: We should preserve diversity and freedom of
choice, at the cost of functionality. Making that statement now,
very clearly, will make that doomsday scenario less likely.
We can easily have a GR on
l...@liw.fi wrote:
While I agree with Ben, perhaps we could retire this, the 12765th
iteration of this discussion, in favor of having a discussion about
platforms and some QA with the candidates?
Maybe this is a good time to ask the candidates what is their position
wrt this PC bullshit.
So
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
even one of them.
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
is a waste of time.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
This is not what I claimed.
Can't you come up with anything better than this?
Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I start with those two because they're the least controversial and have
been part of license analysis for long enough that they're in various FAQs
and in the Wikipedia article on the DFSG, but neither are explicitly
stated in the existing guidelines and there's always
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A good understanding of the effects (ie, providing answers to questions
like: how common are such clauses? if they don't happen, why complain? if
they've already happened, how have they caused problems?) seems like a
good thing to have before making decisions about them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
(apologies for the fraudster shout in my first reply) but went all
quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees were DFSG
breaches before debian
With this message I formally second Frans Pop's proposed resolution from
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I still believe that this proposal represents a reasonable position
for the project to take, the discussion over the past two weeks makes it
clear to me that a large enough fraction of our developership disagrees
strongly with this interpretation that it's not in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
reduce the usefulness of Debian through obnoxious clauses
that would also affect people that do not need the firwmare
in the first place (e.g. by restricting distribution or use of packaging
embedding the
On Sep 07, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
This is what matters.
What is your evidence of this?
My experience of 9 years in Debian, which can be verified by browsing
the list archives.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not been the only one to be upset about the firmware situation
every time it has been brought up, as can be verified by browsing the
list archives. I can see that the controversy is old, but certainly
not that your interpretation was widely accepted.
Wrong. The
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
mindlessly following their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we can't keep the commitment to make the
kernel free software?
We just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would otherwise support a similar amendment, but I
in this form I consider it harmful to our cause.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prove it.
I should prove that Debian distributing illegal proprietary kernel
drivers would really be a bad idea?
No, prove that you would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
the change was not appropriate
On Sep 06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
mindlessly following their
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
users consistent with the first.
This is just your opinion, not a fact.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exclude important
firmwares which are not legally modifiable. Both too much and too little
at the same time.
How would you exclude proprietary kernel drivers while allowing important
firmwares which are not legally
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not adequate
as an immediate solution to this problem because separating the firmware
from the packages that currently contain it is hard and needs development
*And* will need work from the kernel team for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think the real question is How does us refusing to ship non-free
firmware help free software?.
WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING DOING THAT. I hate to shout, but *have* you heard of
non-free? It was mentioned in the post you're replying to!
I did. And it's not part of
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
provided. Since the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that hardware includes non-free firmware in rom, but I think
that observation misses the point. Firmware in rom isn't being^M
distributed by the debian project. The first problem I see with debian
The good old what I don't see cannot hurt me argument.
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well
until you and a few other people started pretending we have been
confused for all these years and actually meant something else.
Suppose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rationale: most of us want to release etch ASAP, and most of us want to
remove the firmwares from the kernel ASAP. This is a way that shouldn't
This is false: most of us do not mind at all distributing sourceless
(or even not modifiable) firmwares in the kernel packages.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rationale: most of us want to release etch ASAP, and most of us want to
remove the firmwares from the kernel ASAP. This is a way that shouldn't
This is false: most of us do not mind at all distributing sourceless
(or even not modifiable) firmwares in the kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion has indeed been going on for a while. The most important
arguments seem to be that one side is saying It must be Free! while
the other claims There is nothing useful in making it Free.
Wrong. The real other argument is there is nothing useful in making it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. We just keep providing the official free images. And someone else will
provide the non-free variants.
Yes: Ubuntu.
This scenario would reflect exactly the
situation that already exists WRT Debian as in (free) Debian and Debian as in
Debian + non-free +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive
to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's
because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project
(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware?
No, it's because they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is FUD. Nothing in this proposal says that we will ignore licenses
when distributing firmware or any other works.
Maybe, but you take the first step toward this, so when will you stop ? Also,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
HTH.
there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer if the term firmware would be defined or at least
explained in the GR. Something like:
firmware (data which is sent to attached devices for processing and
which is not, directly or indirectly, executed on the host CPU)
I don't object to this. Is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
*in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is freedom of software only important for the central
processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle which should be pursued by Debian by not distributing sourceless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A completely different issue is whether we take upstream's word for
GPL compability, or if we claim that something is not redistributable
because it contains a firmware blob *and* is licensed under the GPL as
a whole.
There is hardly a consensus on this, so I expect that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor. Whatever the project's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heavily disagree to this change. It makes the text unpredictable.
I support your disagreement for the reasons you explained and also
because separating the firmwares from the kernel would not solve the
problem of making them available to Debian users.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Aug 23, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
making obviously false claims like firmware are not programs ?
Firmwares are not programs *for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as previously understood in
Debian?
Thank you for your proposal.
While I was thinking about a different proposal (both wider and narrower
in scope), I like
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
suspect that many of the
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be
On Feb 09, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
relicensing to happen, one must be
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying for
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you could
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.
What did they say in response
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
accept non-free documentation into main.
How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely accepted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
about all the candidates, myself.
Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean
they are uninformed.
Indeed, it's a polite way to say that they are morons. g
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity, which important pieces of software are hidden
by not mentioning or including non-free (and contrib)?
I will add to the list ipw2100-source, ipw2200-source and many other
drivers which have been declared unworthy of main after the firmware
madness.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assume the demarcated hypothetical scenario to be true for the questions
which follow.
Now let's try with a less hypothetical scenario.
I'd like to know from the candidates what do they think about a
candidate who, after discovering a possible bug in somebody else's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists.
This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation.
Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant
to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody
who says
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DFSG-revisionists are the people who in the last year invented things
like the dissident test
search in debian-legal for dissident test in 2003.
You are right, now it's almost two years old. But this detail is not
much relevant.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Branden, and the SPI board, need to stop side stepping issues.
Why are you discussing this on debian-vote? Still?
Why not?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 01, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
resolution:
Seconded.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [6555 tr7cnnrfx4XGs]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On May 06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term firmware has become
customary.
What about flash EPROM (which
On May 06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term firmware has become
customary.
What about flash EPROM (which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
(2004 vote 003) be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
General Resolution Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract
(2004 vote 003) be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound
files, and other non-program type files was dealt with by treating
them as if they weren't software.
This is not really true. We mostly ignored the issue, but they were
always software. We never
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound
files, and other non-program type files was dealt with by treating
them as if they weren't software.
This is not really true. We mostly ignored the issue, but they were
always software. We never
On Jun 30, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was marginal, even though
they had no dependence on non-free software. If that is true, those
Some packages are in contrib
84 matches
Mail list logo
