On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1]
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand the
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such an archive.
If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such an archive.
If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that
because
of the name non-free?
Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
which are really about bugs in upstream software.
I don't see what's so difficult
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
I think that's a hasty conclusion. I think the fact that no
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been
taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to
users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a
way that its easy for users
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
Not at the level of main.
At what level *do* we provide it?
However, we can be fairly confident that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Dale Martin wrote:]
The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see
below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called
the DFSG,
I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with
me, please at least argue with what I actually stated.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:22:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook.
Actually talking about the topic at hand is
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't
turn a useful
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free,
per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users
whether they think
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over
in the last few months, and it's getting old.
I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS,
at least.
I think Debian should
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR.
--
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them,
for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in
lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions.
I'll explain more below.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that
because
of the name non-free?
Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do
anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them.
FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run
the program (ie,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software.
Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that:
So the only important question is: do you want to work
on a free distribution or a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
If you == Dale E Martin, you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't
turn a useful
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
Not at the level of main.
At what level *do* we provide it?
However, we can be fairly confident that
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Dale Martin wrote:]
The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see
below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called
the DFSG,
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them,
for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in
lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions.
I'll explain more below.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been
taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to
users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a
way that its easy for users
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Not at the level of main.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:37:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
At what
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR.
--
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over
in the last few months, and it's getting old.
I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS,
at least.
I think Debian should
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that
because
of the name non-free?
Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free,
per se -- how would interpret 20% saying no, and 80% saying yes?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users
whether they think
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
which are really about bugs in upstream software.
I don't see what's so difficult
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
We have infrastructure for it, we don't make use of it at the moment.
I believe most (if not all)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
which are really about bugs in upstream software.
I don't see what's so difficult here.
You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:40:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Which still doesn't make it
And here I thought I was answering a specific question.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being
offered as unsatisfactory.
I did?
Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove
Can a Debian user make a comment here?
I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
Can a Debian user make a comment here?
I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
threads: there is a big point that everybody
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free,
and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example,
perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed
to all users.
I should
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software.
Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that:
So the only important question is: do you want to work
on a free distribution or a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do
anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them.
FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run
the program (ie,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
which are really about bugs in upstream software.
I don't see what's so difficult here.
You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as what we have
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:40:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Which still doesn't make it
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
Can a Debian user make a comment here?
I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
threads: there is a big point that everybody
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free,
and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example,
perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed
to all users.
I should
And here I thought I was answering a specific question.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being
offered as unsatisfactory.
I did?
Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove
Can a Debian user make a comment here?
I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free
stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there.
I think that with the old non-free question, most people
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I
expect
that's pretty small, but non-zero.
n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer
infrastructure
than Debian has.
X is the time taken
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:07:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to
setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Another instance is still
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
Does that look like a
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference.
Huh? Why do you
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even though it
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
the question what will
On 2004-01-09 03:05:23 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If nonfree.org *will* happen, then the hypothetical benefits to our
users
due to more work happening on free software because of the lack of
non-free
software aren't going to come to pass.
I don't think that conclusion
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free
Software and then eventually see Oh, there's this non-free
stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there.
I think that with the old non-free question, most people
On 2004-01-07 04:18:38 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
i is the time saved by not having to worry about non-free stuff. I
expect
that's pretty small, but non-zero.
n is the time taken trying to maintain software with poorer
infrastructure
than Debian has.
X is the time
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:07:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to
setup
a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
isn't trivially small.
It looks like some things need clarifying (eg Origin/Bugs) to make
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Another instance is still
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:11:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But that's not true. The practical consequences are many: Debian ceases
supporting every non-free package, non-free maintainers have to setup their
own archives, contrib becomes at best much harder to support well and at
worst
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Oddly enough, the DFSG was originally a part of the social contract.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:38:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Are you questioning the legitimacy of the recent vote? If so, why?
Does that look like a
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, I believe including rationale in the body of the resolution is
sometimes important
I'm not sure this issue Stop distributing non-free? (y/n) is one of
those. In fact I'm pretty confident it isn't.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved
that.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
proving it is possible, and thus towards defeating their own preference.
Huh? Why do you
On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:36:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
the question what will
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
