or amendments, and for overruling
of delegates.
=
PROPOSAL END
I second this.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening
seconded Lucas' amendment in a separate mail, and I'm hereby rescinding
my second to Bill's amendment.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your
when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
will fix this.
And if that's too much to ask, then I hope voters will read carefuly and
won't fall for such an easy trick.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
changes when
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Robert Millan wrote:
The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:12:24AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
r...@aybabtu.com (Robert Millan) writes:
So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed ...
In my preamble
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over
the ambiguity of not making any explicit
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer
firmware) I don't see any
correlation.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can
by ranking option 2 above option 4.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
with that
doesn't change things.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
want.
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 05:47:00PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote:
Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to
delegate
this responsibility
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as
necessary.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data
the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:52:04PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the
vote.
And I'm sure you would have been the first one
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:54:43PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth
it because I expect we can have a healthy discussion about it after
Lenny is released.
Best wishes to everyone,
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you
.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote:
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release
Team
don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I
will assume you're also
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
It has to be said
to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:14:08PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote:
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release
Team
don't like that we made an exception
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh
, but not
for the rest of Debian.
- The developers are implicitly endorsing an exception for the rest of
Debian packages.
Please, could you send a new message clarifiing the situation, and your
judgement as Secretary?
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We
on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
I'm not sure I agree with your sense
that it actually has the intended effect.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
in this mail, nor make me feel that his decisions as secretary are somehow
illegitimate.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data
operations of Debian, except in so far as it
| influences individual contributors' actions.
`
How does this differ from the previous one in practice?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
the Secretary for your mistakes,
he's just doing his job.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...], and frankly I see no reason that we as a project
should even honor the outcome of a vote on this ballot as presented.
I think you meant to say we as the Release Team.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:45:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Feel free to propose an amendment. I might accept it.
I propose the following ammendment:
[...]
Since there was no further reply on this proposed ammendment
/strong/p
+ pThe license must allow modifications and derived works, and
+ must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your
appreciate his contribution.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
passed,
and due to the urgency of the situation I don't want to wait much longer before
calling for vote.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove
is already
scheduled. Whatever we decide now, it will be by consensus.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access
source code from being distributed under a free license.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:10:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the subject
prior to every release.
May I ask who are those trolls you refer to?
--
Robert Millan
to disambiguigate it, like
we did in GR 2004 / 003, or even in GR 2003 / 003.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00039.html
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom
the Social Contract is not allowed
anywhere in the project, not just in stable releases. The fact that other
participants did (either intentionally or unintentionally) is by no means an
excuse for the Release Team to do the same.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us
] http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/gr_sec415_tally.txt
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_non_free_tally.txt
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you
firmware is not unanimous. This
would have to be resolved in some way, too. Either with a new vote, or by
adding a new option to this ballot.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:39:04PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
If we get closer to the free side, and provide a 100% free main like we
used to,
When precisely was that?
Yeah, it's funny. We never did. Let us say, like we used to promise
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:14:30PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
network
card is using DMA to send
really help much.
Can you? Would you explain how? (and no, I run wireshark in my gateway and
dig through several GiBs of data doesn't really tell me anything)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
they care about
freedom, even if they sacrifice their beliefs for practical reasons, and
install non-free software. But when they do, they want to know they did.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
software has very little to do with the
desirability of freedom of software.
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your network
card is using DMA to send away your private data in unaccounted frames.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:56:06AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On the contrary. It is excess of overlapping options that prompt for
strategic
voting. For example, if I don't care much between option A and option B
that.
Why not refer to it as microcode instead? This is far less ambigous, as
microcontroller is a more specific term than processor.
Also, I was asked to s/BLOB/blob/ which seems fine to me too.
May I suggest so-called \blobs\ or some indication that blob is an
informal term?
--
Robert Millan
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:20:33PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-12 15:29]:
For example, if you want to install Debian on an NSLU, the only
difficulty is finding the unofficial D-I images that include
non-free firmware. And even that can
:
[3]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00086.html
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:49:44PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:29:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
For example, if you want to install Debian on an NSLU, the only difficulty
is
finding the unofficial D-I images that include non-free firmware. And even
] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00086.html
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
. If the project grants them an exception to release Lenny (like we
did for Sarge and Etch), I'll support that too.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow
with the hope that the project will
agree with at least one of the options (remember, I proposed 3 very different
options).
Of course I don't know for sure. If we could read everyone's minds we
wouldn't need a voting process after all.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs
.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to
make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1].
Please
. And even
that can be improved. They could be linked from the main website, and
integrated with our infrastructure, much like we do for non-free, as long
as we make it clear they're not officially Debian.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how
is to remove/replace it)
Usually true, but not always so. See #494010.
Which is taking surprisingly long to be fixed. Makes me wonder what
best effort truly means...
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data
to justify more of the same.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
hardware than official builds, since
almost nobody uses pure Debian on a NSLU (network requires a USB dongle).
Whether it's harder to install or not, it depends on you. We don't have a
foundation document saying it must be.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We
to present me as. Proof
is written.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
continue mean in this phrase? Are you trying to imply
that the release team is _already_ empowered to make decisions that override
SC #1?
- If you are, why is it not explicit?
- If you're not, then please remove the continue from that phrase.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your
,
not because a few, chosen ones, decide it unilaterally.
Whether the project decides that we need an exception that overrides SC #1 for
the Nth time or not, that's a secondary problem as far as I'm concerned.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
, not that of the project.
Therefore, it doesn't belong in this GR to assert that Lenny will be delayed
indefinitely.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow
until they are fixed. Is my understanding correct?
Yes (except that option 2 is not more Robert's than option 3 is).
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still
majority)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
Hi Peter,
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
--
Robert
decided by a general
| resolution.
Seconded.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
signature.asc
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:54:35PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 27 October 2008 20:36, Robert Millan wrote:
- We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
out - for this reason, we will
- treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
How about dropping the GR
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[me]
Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
any time something is added to non-free?
[Robert Millan]
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:27:24PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't
refer
have no
clue about what they imply, and will most likely not vote or send a no-op
ballot.
[1] or members, or people with voting rights, whatever..
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening
(and in fact I just did).
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
, and will send
a new mail with all of them, asking seconders to pick a subset if they want.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Moin,
On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Moin,
On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
When ever a package in Debian
)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
before the
package
+ can be moved back into Debian.
+ /p
/li
listrongWe will give back to the free software community/strong
p
(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:22:57PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as
a
best-effort
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:36:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
(Also, isn't we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
complies with the DFSG a no-op?)
The license for a sourceless blob can be GPL or BSD, which are licenses
that comply with the DFSG, or it could be any sort
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I propose the following alternatative to Option 2 (removes last sentence):
Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
Option 2 (allow
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Moin,
On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more
besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of who
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:32:52AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 20:26 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us
look like a bunch of clowns.
it makes us look like a bunch of clowns.
look
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Robert Millan]
+ p
+ When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines/cite/q for 60 days or more, and
+ none of the solutions that have been implemented
be useful too.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
of fact, if you want to send chocolate to Ben I second that too.
I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us
look like a bunch of clowns.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data
of progress has been
made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
operating system is complete.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy
.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
over sorting every bit
out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
best-effort process.
(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
