Debian Project secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature from Martin
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
Good signature from Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
As I expect that at least one of the seconds/proposer will object to
this amendment (heh), I'm actively looking for seconds myself now.
I personally object to this because I find actually what you call bugs
to be much more
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
This requirement is extremly costly for anyone attempting to
distribute Sarge either as a mirror or as an ISO image.
Can you point to testimony of people actually hindered by this?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature from Martin F. Krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aka Martin F. Krafft
Thanks to Luk for setting things straight. I hereby second Dato's
proposal, which is included in full below.
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and
I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a
In linux.debian.vote Adeodato wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a paragraph
and reword a couple sentences, but I didn't quite
Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place:
=C2=ABHey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool
program and releasing it under the
Merle Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or
[...] ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible
at the stated location until at least one year after the
* Esteban Manchado Velázquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-13 09:26]:
I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
I hereby second this proposal as well.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Merle Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or [...]
ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the
stated
Hi,
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
Good signature from Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (Debian) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MJ Ray [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:52 +]:
Also, this fails to address the security ban and the forced
Transparent downloads/availability.
'Cause this amendment is not about trying to engage in legal-type
discussion about whether those two can be work-arounded or not. It's:
we regard
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060112 15:09]:
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like
a form of betrayal.
It is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060112 15:09]:
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
intended
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff
Adeodato Simó, 2006-01-12 15:10:40 +0100 :
[...]
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help,
at all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their
authors intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve
that, like a form of betrayal.
I second the proposal quoted below.
I'm following debian-vote through the archives, so if you wish to reply or
comment to me specifically, CC me.
Christopher Martin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:53:04PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Having invariant sections (or any other non-free stuff) in main could
be seen as a betrayal of the people who chose the license.
This is not about invariant sections. This is about the other bugs in
the GFDL the FSF has not fixed
Le Jeu 12 Janvier 2006 22:28, Christopher Martin a écrit :
I second the proposal quoted below.
and I do the same.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=
This is the
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover
Le Ven 13 Janvier 2006 00:09, martin f krafft a écrit :
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455
+0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section
of its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Seconded.
Hamish
---8---
Debian
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:33:36AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
And please, I don't want to see answers saying that the documentation
can be put in non-free, because, due the the debian policy, `kde`
meta-package (same is true for gnome) beeing in main, cannot depend
upon the non free kde
Seconded.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=
This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
Documentation License as published by the Free Software
Adeodato Sim=C3=B3
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:42:00AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
The way we distribute source and binaries doesn't meet this requirement;
Well, this assuming that distributing the source in the same
* Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]:
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
that, and as part of that
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below.
(The purpose being to indicate the GFDL only needs to be in non-free
due to invariant sections. This would be nice if it were
33 matches
Mail list logo
