Em Qua, 2005-05-11 s 03:07 -0500, Jaime Ochoa Malagn escreveu:
Hi everybody,
Hello,
I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian
(including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger
to being sued?
Non-free is only *distributed* by Debian, it's
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn.
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
Hi everybody,
I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian
(including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger
to being sued?
Accordingly with Goswin that's nothing about complain, only the main
server of the distribution don't have non-free, the main
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip class=lotsofannoyingstuff /
Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still
mad that the DDs voted to keep it. Sure.
I *am* an AMD64 user, and I can completely understand
* Ed Cogburn
| We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake!
I can't see that you've done anything at all for the AMD64 port, nor
are you a DD. Please go troll somewhere else.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!
You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed
if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other arch! If this is not the
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
in
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
please. Things like most of that is of zero help in deciding what
can go in and what not. We know most of it
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
Laywers arent rationale.
Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and
money to sue the
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 3:22pm, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
Laywers arent rationale.
Give us one reasonable example of why
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:34:57AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Snip lots of annoying crap
Stop acting like such a spoiled child. You want non-free for amd64? Host it
yourself until it gets moved officially. Don't like it? You've qualified
for a full refund on your purchase.
- David Nusinow
--
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free, not harder.
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:26:20AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a
Ed Cogburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free, not harder.
Permission to redistribute some bits of non-free may be specific to
Debian. Alternatively, packages may be buildable but no permission to
rebuild them
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free,
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian,
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation
I am
forced to agree with Ed - the
Ed Cogburn writes:
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
providing access to, but not support for, non-free.
One of
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
explanation I am
forced to agree with Ed -
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed Cogburn writes:
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
providing access to,
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
other
arch! If this is not
Hi
As announced earlier the Debian AMD64 archive moved away from alioth
on the weekend from April 30 til today, May 2. Well, we are still
polishing some bits, but hey - 99% of it works.
For the impatient here are the important things you need to know:
- Modify /etc/apt/sources.list to include
28 matches
Mail list logo
