On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing
the de iure requirements of the SC related to
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
non-free?
It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32
would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
would be much more compelling
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
non-free?
It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing
the de iure requirements of the SC related to
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
non-free?
It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32
would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
non-free?
It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
Not at all.
You have not been demonstrating that GFDL
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms
for at least some of our users.
I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client
enhances anyone's freedom in any way.
I guess that's
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
require everything in main to satisfy the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to
I didn't write that, Andrew did.
Argh, sorry about that.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them,
you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't
be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +,
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free.
Alongside it sit several shareware
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Last I checked, rar is
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of
On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our
users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a
non-free package
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote
here.
I hadn't looked at that.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 + Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of
debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that
list, I think there have been some
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a
choice?
I'm
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG is simply false.
At present it's not a requirement that
On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped --
that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Was there a change in
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped --
that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about
our existing practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a
choice?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing
that the licenses of this
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the
requirements of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? We didn't
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
Not at all.
You have not been demonstrating that GFDL
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to
I didn't write that, Andrew did.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms
for at least some of our users.
I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client
enhances anyone's freedom in any way.
I guess that's
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
require everything in main to satisfy the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to
I didn't write that, Andrew did.
Argh, sorry about that.
--
Raul
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them,
you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't
be dropped.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +,
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free.
Alongside it sit several
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Last I checked, rar is
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote:
It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG --
requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't
seem to have any justification on Debian's part.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG is simply false.
At present it's not a requirement that
On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped --
that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Was there a change
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped --
that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about
our existing practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a
choice?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing
that the licenses of this
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the
requirements of
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
Let us be
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
This is a
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anthony Towns
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? We didn't
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:21:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's very simple: GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all
requirements of the DFSG.
That's nice. Why do you think that means it would get dropped from main,
merely because the non-free section will disappear?
Because
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
On 2004-01-23 11:52:28 + Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't
include
it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So
such a package is not distributable by debian.
That probably doesn't follow. There
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
Let us be
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
On
On 2004-01-23 16:40:17 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a
gross
violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces
payment from non-DD mirror operators.
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
This is a
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
MJ distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed
MJ list stands.
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirements is.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Anthony Towns (eventually, after a few false leads) managed to find
some shareware
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep non-free as is (unproposed)
Before anybody gets a bright
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware
afaik.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
way with
a single proposal.
The remove non-free issue is a specific instance of the people have
criticised
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
way with
a single proposal.
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The remove non-free issue is a specific instance of the people have
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Andrew's drop non-free proposal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he seems
to intend a separate ballot for grammatical
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
