Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
>> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
>> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along
Quoting Simon Josefsson (2022-09-08 11:29:07)
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
> the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
>
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> --
>
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document)
Russ Allbery writes:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
without the required 3:1 majority.
I'm worried that if we publish
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
> >> non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system
>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
>> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article
Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> >
> > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
>
> [...]
>
> > What about this
On 9/8/22 00:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more
concise:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
...
>> But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
>> point in the process. (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case
>> there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
>
> I disagree; this looks precisely like the change I think we
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one
> > very
> > simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
>
> It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
> pretty
Simon Richter writes:
> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> given that the actual hardware is non-free.
What has
Hey Ross!
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:04:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
>> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
>>
Hi,
On 9/8/22 08:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
pretty strong word here.
It is a
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Simon Richter writes:
>
>> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
>> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
>> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> > be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> > on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> > given
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
> discussion.
I had assumed "official" was in more common usage. It seems like
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" writes:
> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
> """
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not
> conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be
>>> one very simple way to express the change we (some of us)
On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 11:55 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes
> and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers.
...
> An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
> practical
23 matches
Mail list logo
