El dg, 10 mar 2002 14:06:53 Raphael Hertzog ha escrit:
Hi,
Le Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan écrivait:
What is your personal opinion on those ports?
I'm in favor of those ports, and as such I'm willing to
make the required changes. However I'm not sure they can
El dv, 15 mar 2002 09:21:08 Branden Robinson ha escrit:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
My questions for the three candidates are:
What is your personal opinion on those ports?
I'm very enthusiastic about them. I don't have time at present to
devote
guess so is for Joel :)
Cheers,
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU/* user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
.
---
This amendment essentially reaffirms that the current text of the
social contract is what is meant, and that Debian does not cut corners
in order to release sooner.
I second Andrew's proposal.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making
sooner.
Seconded.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work.
-- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale
with the new Social
Contract?
Seems like the use of the word limited is ambigous. Any amount of time is
limited by a greater one.
Any comments on this?
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own
PROTECTED])
Anyway, I state here that I do second this proposal.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some
want this for the sake of clarification I don't object.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:07:02 +0200, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Seems like the use of the word limited is ambigous. Any amount of
time is limited by a greater one.
I am willing to trust that people
instead of freedom.
Could you propose a formal amendment? I don't know the details to do that.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
For example, I don't think it is reasonable even for those who support
proposal E that the new SC isn't enforced after Sarge, and that not
only Sarge but also Sarge+1
of the SC, non-free is part
of Debian. This interpretation would make the SC contradict itself, and
bring us to the silly situation in which a position statement that merely
reaffirms the SC is actualy violating it.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making
with
that; but in that case, please say summary: you probably want 6
instead of this.
Hey everyone. Just in case you have doubts, note that you probably want
to vote for 6.
[ sorry, couldn't resist ]
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery
on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work
you disagree with them?
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work.
-- J.R.R.T
else must be allowed to do it.
If permission is not granted to someone else to do it, not granting it
constitues a decision that can be overriden by GR.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:13:09PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
I remember when I suggested that we should follow clause 1 of the Social
Contract, this was pedantic for you too. Do you find adherance with official
documents always pedantic or only when you disagree with them?
Uhm.. well
.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work.
-- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:25:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
The following is a draft for an amendment to the latest GR; I'd appreciate
^
Erm, shit. =)
Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal
. Well, in Germany there is a word for those kind of people: Wendehals
I wonder why the NM queue is not handled in FIFO mode.
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:54:53AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:45:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal that comes out of this draft.
Just for the reference, I'm inclined to change it into something like Debian
reaffirms
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:54:26AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:48:07AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't comment
publically against
that. Now can you tell me what prevents FIFO
processing?
(Note: if you can't answer my question refrain from attempting to deviate it
into an unrelated matter.)
--
Robert Millan
[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
It really sucks that we reached this point. But since proper communication has
failed horribly to resolve this, I recognise there's no other way.
Seconded.
I hereby withdraw my second to this proposal.
Many developers were
Euh. This ought to be signed, IIRC..
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 06:21:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
It really sucks that we reached this point. But since proper communication has
failed horribly to resolve this, I
hope this can be
discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
--
Robert Millan
(Debra
of should instead of must in the resolution. I
intended it as an official positioning by the project, not an authoritative
statement. Does that address your concern?
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software
a chance to explain them.
--
Robert Millan
(Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\
(kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution))
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
attention, please keep
the CCs to debian-hurd and debian-bsd
Cheers,
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU/* user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
El dv, 15 mar 2002 09:21:08 Branden Robinson ha escrit:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 03:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
My questions for the three candidates are:
What is your personal opinion on those ports?
I'm very enthusiastic about them. I don't have time at present to
devote
so is for Joel :)
Cheers,
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU/* user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.dyndns.org/
)
--
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
.
--
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
be faster to move everything to non-free.
Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib, and I
don't think anyone would want to do it anyway, so this sounds like a moot
point.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you
2006, and even 2004.
See my report in #497823 (second mail).
--
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 Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move
glibc to non-free
,
etc.
--
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
similar approach to what Ubuntu did with Gobuntu, but in
reverse.
--
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 Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:29:01PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:40:14PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
No firmware
issue tagged etch-ignore is still present in lenny. IOW the kernel team
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:22:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50
others. The fact that
some of them did _not_ ask for it only makes it worse: it means we're liing
to our users when we tell them Debian is 100% free.
--
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
them in the non-free repository.
Which, as per #1, is not part of Debian. What you're arguing is that #4 is
supposed to not only contradict #1, but additionally that this contradiction
implies that #1 is void.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
garantees that they can use the project's resources for this
purpose.
--
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
you pointed out.
--
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 the Technical Committee?
The Technical Committee is not empowered to override foundation documents.
--
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
considered a technical
bug when main is not self-contained).
Does someone think the proposal should be adjusted in either of these ways,
or in others?
If not, I'll resend it as a proposal and ask for seconds shortly.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:40:57PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
[...] think the proposal should [...]
[...] resend it as a proposal [...]
Erm, these two sentences sounded a bit silly, but I think what I meant is
clear. Please bear with me :-)
--
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:03:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:34:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
2) After the next stable release, a general resolution will be used to
decide on the procedures for becoming a member of the Debian project
for stable sounds
reasonable; is everyone fine with that?
--
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
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
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:49:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
takes immediately effect until a procedural vote decides if the supsension
Typo ^
--
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 Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:22:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
By who? There is no standard.
I don't think we need a standard to define things like
that they would infringe this text as well.
Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.
--
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
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:39:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
for resolving DFSG violations:
I would generally second this, but I wish we would
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:41:53AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
moving packages in the stable distribution may still require approval by
the Release Team for stable).
I don't
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
. 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
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
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
