It's said that the project will be evaluated and not automatically
accepted. So it implicitely said that.
You might be right; still, I think it would be good if I look at the whole
text for myself. Could you send that to me?
___
Savannah-hacke
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> > This mail was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Robert Rouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> described the package as follows:
> > License: gpl
> > Other License:
> > Package: Voyeur - Linux game hacking t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What is left is to rephrase the requirements of Savannah so that it
> reflects this decision.
>
> We don't need to describe all these issues; we should only extend this
> if it will save us time.
>
> What it must say, in some words or other, i
What is left is to rephrase the requirements of Savannah so that it
reflects this decision.
We don't need to describe all these issues; we should only extend this
if it will save us time.
What it must say, in some words or other, is say that we reserve the
right to decline to host a packa
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If we refuse this project for anti social reasons, then we should
> update the requirements on the Savannah pages.
>
> Maybe we should do so in a very general way.
>
> But don't we already say that approval of a project is at our
> discretion,
With those p2p clients you can share non-free software.
You can share all sorts of things with them; they are not specifically
for non-free software.
___
Savannah-hackers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savanna
> Meanwhile, another relevant point is that it is useful
> only for running non-free software.
How did you conclude that? I can't find anything mentioning non-free
software in the discription.
If the game is free, you don't need this program.
You only need it for running a non-fr
If we refuse this project for anti social reasons, then we should
update the requirements on the Savannah pages.
Maybe we should do so in a very general way.
But don't we already say that approval of a project is at our
discretion, that we can say no for any reason?
And what about th
Nobody told me when I duplicated an old tape for friend that I was
an antisocial.
A contrario, sharing seems a very social attitude to me.
While cheating is clearly a dishonnest social attitude, say antisocial.
Yes, that's it exactly.
__
My p2p example was not well picked. But we have discussed this issue
for long enough now so it is time to take a decision.
As the majority (everyone except me :)) thinks we should reject this
project, we will reject this project.
I agree with Richard when he says: "We must not say that we refuse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what about the P2P clients we are hosting? They are in the
> first place used to share non-free software and to share music.
They are probably USED for that, but the software is DESIGNED to be an
effect
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 12:10:16PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > That is antisocial to the free software community too if you consider
> > > the antisocial requirement.
> >
> > Why?
>
> With those p2p clients you can share non-free software.
These p2p
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 12:10:16PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > That is antisocial to the free software community too if you consider
> > the antisocial requirement.
>
> Why?
With those p2p clients you can share non-free software.
--
Rudy Gevaert[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I cannot accept that view. We must not say that we refuse to judge
> > the job that software does. If the purpose or the main use of a
> > program is antisocial, we will not support its
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:12:11PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > To me, your analogy isn't correct. "Being able to" isn't the same as
> > > "having the freedom to".
> >
> > Hum, in fact my sentence was not clea
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 08:05:52AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I gather that on Windows these scanning program are common.
> > What are the general views among gamers who use Windows
> > about these programs?
>
> Hard to know.
>
> People must surely write about what they fe
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:58PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I cannot accept that view. We must not say that we refuse to judge
> the job that software does. If the purpose or the main use of a
> program is antisocial, we will not support its development.
I think we are walking on a ver
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:32:02PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Meanwhile, another relevant point is that it is useful
> only for running non-free software.
How did you conclude that? I can't find anything mentioning non-free
software in the discription.
--
Rudy Gevaert[EM
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:12:11PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > To me, your analogy isn't correct. "Being able to" isn't the same as
> > "having the freedom to".
>
> Hum, in fact my sentence was not clear. The following is more
> redundant but more accura
For me, Savannah should host any kind of Free Software (that doesn't
rely on non-free software, etc.).
I cannot accept that view. We must not say that we refuse to judge
the job that software does. If the purpose or the main use of a
program is antisocial, we will not support its develop
> The program can also be used to fix holes in Free game software.
No, it cannot. Read the description of the program.
In that case, and given that apparently the main use is
for cheating when playing against other players, I think
we should reject this program.
Meanwhile, another releva
There's another issue here. Even if the program in question, when
executed unmodified, is only useful for unfair purposes -- a
proposition which is not yet clear -- in the case of free software
there are other possible uses beyond unmodified execution. Perhaps it
can be studie
There's another issue here. Even if the program in question, when
executed unmodified, is only useful for unfair purposes -- a
proposition which is not yet clear -- in the case of free software
there are other possible uses beyond unmodified execution. Perhaps it
can be studied to help learn the
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > To me, freedom to disregard fairness and common rules is an
> > harm. Being able to rape any women in the street could be seen as a
> > freedom: in this case, this freedom should not be given
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> To me, freedom to disregard fairness and common rules is an
> harm. Being able to rape any women in the street could be seen as a
> freedom: in this case, this freedom should not be given because it
> creates more harm than anything els
Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 07:21:09PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If the only result of using the 'tool' is to cause harm or unfairness
> > then we should think about it, but if the 'tool' provides other kind
> > of results then I guess it w
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 07:21:09PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If the only result of using the 'tool' is to cause harm or unfairness
> then we should think about it, but if the 'tool' provides other kind
> of results then I guess it would be the same as with network sniffing
>
If the only result of using the 'tool' is to cause harm or unfairness
then we should think about it, but if the 'tool' provides other kind
of results then I guess it would be the same as with network sniffing
tools, etc.
I agree with that principle.
Does anyone know which way it i
> I gather that on Windows these scanning program are common.
> What are the general views among gamers who use Windows
> about these programs?
Hard to know.
People must surely write about what they feel.
Someone could look around and get a picture of it.
___
Hugo Gayosso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But if there's so many scanning programs for games, it also means
> > that many people are enjoying these programs (it is not a big
> > surprise to me that many people enjoy unfair tools).
>
> On the other han
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if there's so many scanning programs for games, it also means
> that many people are enjoying these programs (it is not a big
> surprise to me that many people enjoy unfair tools).
On the other hand, the
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Personally, I'm not in favor of hosting this project because, despite
> of what the submitter say, it does harm games. Most of the recent game
> propose "cheat" features in the software when you are not playing
> over the net with other
Personally, I'm not in favor of hosting this project because, despite
of what the submitter say, it does harm games. Most of the recent game
propose "cheat" features in the software when you are not playing
over the net with other real persons but with AIs.
In general, we see nothi
I have no problem with this project. The programmer just uses his 4
freedoms.
--
Rudy Gevaert[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web pagehttp://www.webworm.org
GNU/Linux for schools http://www.nongnu.org/glms
Savannah hacker http://savannah.gnu.org
Any idea about this registration (not about the confusion linux vs gnu
but the nature of the software - see below)?
Personally, I'm not in favor of hosting this project because, despite
of what the submitter say, it does harm games. Most of the recent game
propose "cheat" features in the software
35 matches
Mail list logo
