Hi all,
On IRC it was mentioned that there are updates to the CRA that may
address the concerns of the FLOSS community.
These blogs have updates at the top:
https://blog.nlnetlabs.nl/open-source-software-vs-the-cyber-resilience-act/
拾
update, december 2023: The concerns expressed in this
On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 19:16 +0100, Bart Martens wrote:
> Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002
> as a separate proposal.
Seconded.
> START OF PROPOSAL TEXT
>
> Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the
> Product Liability Directive
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
>
On Sat, 2022-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software
> appears solved or possible to solve.
As I understand it there are two problems solved by proposal A/E:
Users who aren't aware of the firmware problem are directed by
Hi all,
While firmware is the most important category of software not available
in Debian main needed by Debian users at install time, there are others.
Some that I can think of are drivers and accessibility aids, for eg:
The broadcom-sta-dkms Broadcom WiFi driver is only in non-free.
The
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there is time left, though, I'm considering proposing the following
> option based on my earlier message, just so that there's something on the
> ballot that explicitly modifies the Social Contract to allow for non-free
> firmware, in
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
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 20:31 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive
> available
> for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is
On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 09:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
> > of people who do not care about having a fully free software syste
On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:19 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, just pushing a not-well-thought-idea: Would dak, apt, or any
> other bit of our infrastructure be very angry if non-free-firmware
> were to be not an additional component, but a strict subset of
> non-free?
>
> That is, all
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 21:49 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be
> allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on it?
and if so, how/where should we be allowed to mention/document/promote
the images
On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 23:21 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:40:24AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > In the future Intel may enable a scenario similar to Secure Boot's
> > Machine Owner Key setup, where device owners can add new signing keys.
> >
&
On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 10:10 +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Does anyone still mass-produce CDs?
I don't know about mass-produce, but surprisingly there are still
Debian CD vendors in parts of the world where Internet is everywhere.
https://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
> I think we could simply
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 17:47 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Now we're in a situation where non-free firmware is absolutely required for
> basic functionality - without the Intel non-free firmware, you can't run
> sound for a visually impaired user to install if you have some Intel laptops.
A
On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
> of people who do not care about having a fully free software system.
My reading of it was the opposite, that the FSF RYF program doesn't
take into account the
On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 12:32 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later more prominent.
Is the Debian Images team willing to continue to produce the images
On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 11:38 -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> openSUSE has this clever system that hooks into zypper (their apt
> equivalent) to install the firmware package on demand if a matching PCI
> ID is found (presumably USB device identifiers too, but I'm not sure).
>
> This could
On Sun, 2022-06-19 at 07:23 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> On 6/19/22 01:43, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > Text of GR
> >
> > Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's
> > currency
> > of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
> >
> > End Text
On Tue, 2022-03-29 at 20:47 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when
> filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out.
My reference to the Hardware/Wanted wiki page was referring to the
procedure for after you have bought hardware, no
On Sun, 2022-03-27 at 18:05 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Is that the kind of indifference you're referring to?
There are lots of situations where indifference is a factor; the
factors you mention, derivatives that no-one in Debian ever gets to
hear about, long standing derivatives that are
On Sun, 2022-03-27 at 18:34 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> One thing people have been really concerned about when asking for Debian
> to buy hardware is, is what happens to the hardware after they're done
> with it? So far I've just told them that they can try to pass it on to
> another DD
Debian's relationship with the various distributions derived from
Debian and approach to existing and new derivatives has had a wide
range of states. Most derivatives recieve indifference from Debian.
There has been animosity from Debian towards some derivatives. We have
welcomed the creation of
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 11:41 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I still want to work towards having an expenditure policy,
...
> The idea would be that there's some clear document that makes it
> really easy for someone to know whether they can apply for something
> or not, and I think if it hits a
On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 22:14 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> There are a trillion and two external dependencies on many
> of the above that take extra work and ages on top of that.
For example, according to codesearch there are around 210 mentions of
the domain in 61 Debian source packages. I have
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 2:44 PM Felix Lechner wrote:
> A fellow developer and I have reached an impasse over the appropriate
> level of privacy guarantees in Debian. [1]
I think that lintian privacy tags currently represent several sets of bugs:
The browsers shipping in Debian place no barriers
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:12 AM Antonio Russo wrote:
> I apologize if this is the wrong venue to ask this question (and, if so, could
> someone please direct me to the proper venue to ask this kind of question).
The debian-mentors or debian-devel lists seem like the more
appropriate places to
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:48 PM Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Evolution PGP sign seems fragile and it doesn't work
I signed my vote using Evolution's OpenPGP support and it worked fine for me.
> (Maybe I should have used S/MIME sign)
Debian doesn't use S/MIME signing in any context.
--
bye,
pabs
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> ...
Thanks for the info, those details are interesting.
> Non-uploading DD's existed at the time, I just had no interest in
> becoming a non-uploading DD when it was already my intent to become an
> uploading DD.
I don't think any one
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I re-read the above, my understanding is that Paul made a statement
> about the non-dd process being sufficient for new delegates that should
> become members, and then I agreed and re-affirmed that that should be at
> least the bare
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates could be
> project members, I understand your concern, but often it's best to be
> willing to work with people who are willing to do the work.
>
> I would suggest some minimal
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:11 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Fair enough, thanks. I don't look at QA summaries opportunistically, so
> I see why we'd have different impressions in this area.
I wonder if folks are using how-can-i-help, that reports sponsorship
requests for packages you have installed
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:05 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
> If I have relevant expertise or experience to improve Debian in some
> particular respect (e.g. fixing bugs in a packages written in a
> particular programming language that isn't so commonly used), I have
> strong reason to use my time to
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:56 PM Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Gentoo, for instance, has been ported to Interix and macOS[1].
I note that there was at one time a Debian Interix port:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-interix/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170629135305/http://debian-interix.net/
--
On Thu, 2019-03-14 at 09:36 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> The second one (which requires more work on the Debian side) is to do
> our own double-accounting, track all expenses, and track how they are
> taken into account by TOs.
As far as I have seen Debian expenses, the Debian treasurers are
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:05 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Responsibility #4: "Debian Monthly News"
>
> Over time, the DPL somehow has grown the responsibility of distributing
> news that are sometimes very loosely related to the DPL role. That's
> probably
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:05 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Also, from the DPL POV, it would be very useful to have an annual
> report on Debian finances. I don't know if this exists nowadays.
Some of the TOs have annual reports, the SPI one includes some details
of Debian & DebConf money at SPI,
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> What is the big (legal) difference between distributing something
> from the Debian group on the Debian machine salsa.debian.org, and
> distributing the same from a different Debian machine?
The big difference appears to be the Social Contract
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> having *some* irc channels of public interest being available for offline
> users?
FYI, #debian on both OFTC and freenode are publicly logged:
http://ibot.rikers.org/%23debian/
http://irclogs.thegrebs.com/debian/
--
bye,
pabs
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Even more, from my experience, the availability of an HCL (ie: Hardware
> Compatibility List) is mandatory for some vendors to choose Debian. At
> $work, I've been told that Debian wouldn't an option for it.
Would this count as a HCL for
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Do you think a HW Certification Process should be available for Debian ?
I note that some hardware vendors are asking for one, one example here:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> We could remove the existing sentence and append this to the paragraph:
>
> We do not require that the packages in the "non-free" area are
> redistributable by third-parties.
After a comment from an FTP team member on IRC
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> The SC is read as "we are doing this and that" while this sentence is read
> as "dear , here is our advice". I think that's inconsistent.
We could remove the existing sentence and append this to the paragraph:
We do not require that
To the candidate:
Have you read Lars Wirzenius' not-platform?
http://blog.liw.fi/posts/dpl-2016-not-platform/
Do you have any thoughts on it?
Does Debian need the Social Committee proposed by Lars?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hi Mehdi,
Lars Wirzenius recently wrote a blog post entitled "Not-platform for
Debian project leader elections 2016". I wonder if you have any
thoughts on what he has written there:
http://blog.liw.fi/posts/dpl-2016-not-platform/
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hi Mehdi,
Any thoughts on the low amount of DPL candidates this year? The only
year we have had a sole candidate was when zack ran for second-term
re-election in 2011, which is a quite different situation to this one,
where the previous DPL is not running for re-election.
How do you think this
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
the only way that contrib/non-free will ever be removed is by voting
We could however more prominently indicate the downsides of
contrib/non-free and restrict their reach:
Having our various services more prominently indicate non-free
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
- Lack of people power in some areas
Which general areas would you say we have a particular need for more people in?
- Generally, no interest of contributors for non-technical tasks
The amount of translators we have suggests otherwise.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As far as I know Debian does not have a routinely executed exit procedure
where inactive DD's are being removed from the set. So looking at the
relation between voters and eligible voters doesn't lend itself to
interpretation about the
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Saul Goode wrote:
I imagine I've missed other contributors, but the point is that for each of
the 1084 Debian Developers who are being asked to vote in this GR, there are
dozens, if not hundreds, of contributors who are deserving not only of
recognition for
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
Can anybody guess where systemd is devloped?
No need to guess when they have git logs:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/log/
I recognise people from these distros in the git logs: debian mageia
redhat archlinux ubuntu tizen
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Simon Richter wrote:
The technical shortcomings of systemd are the smaller problem here. The
way I've been treated (stopping short of directly accusing me to
actively look for problems to complain about) whenever I was raising a
technical issue suggests to me
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Something else that would be nice to have is a way to track the story
behind each piece of non-free software. There are some cases where
software ends up in non-free for rather obscure (but correct!) reasons.
It would be great to have a
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Without trying to get a cleaner sheet first, vrms says:
Firmwares, documentation (make-doc, manpages-posix{,-dev}), rar (I had
to open a RAR 3.0 archive some time ago, and forgot to remove the package),
flashplugin-nonfree, virtualbox.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree, iucode-tool from contrib.
On my server, I have pine, which I don't use but some of the users on it seem
to be
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You mean you want to go through GR 2004_003 *again*?
That GR passed and was about the SC, not the DFSG. Personally I think
it was a mistake to not change the terminology used in the DFSG at the
same time as changing the terminology in the
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
We have a consensus now that everything in Debian should be free,
even those parts that some don't consider to be software.
I agree with the rest of your post but I don't think we actually have
consensus here.
--
bye,
pabs
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
1) we should have a partners program that would allow us to track our
recurring sponsors, and ask them to do their yearly donation to
*Debian* (not DebConf).
We already do have a partners program, some of the usual DebConf
sponsors don't
To the candidates:
Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
would it be desirable?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
To the candidates,
Some parts of the DFSG seem like they do not apply to some types of
works. In particular, items 2, 6, 7 and 8 seem to not apply to things
that are not programs. Much of the DFSG doesn't seem to apply to
things that are not software.
The DFSG does not define what is meant by
To the candidates,
Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
How do you feel about Debian's approach to non-free software laid out
in Social Contract item 5? Is it the right approach? Should we change
it?
How much support should Debian give for non-free packages?
On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 21:56 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Why not ask the FreeBSD folks whether they'd be willing to share their code?
(Yes, I do know that a working donation system requires more than a web site.)
I think we would want a system to export from ledger and import to
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 21:53 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
How so? I have the feeling that all the relevant people are on the list?
I get the feeling that Martin and Kai from the Press Team aren't
subscribed, unsure though.
Maybe there's too much things going out of band without feedback to
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
- Do not send spam; see the advertising policy below. (the advertising
policy is the interesting part)
- Send all of your e-mails in English. Only use other languages on mailing
lists where that is explicitly allowed (e.g. French on
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef Alexander Wirt:
- When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy
(CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied.
Well, heh.
...
I think we
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm not sure how wiki.d.o bans would fit. We *could* list banned users
on a specific page, I guess. But the vast majority of the bans we ever
enact are for spamming.
The only non-spam-related bans I can remember were for specific people
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Moray Allan wrote:
retire gracefully. It's still possible for someone to continue as a project
member indefinitely if they want to, without doing any work, if they get rid
of all their responsibilities first, but I don't think that a large enough
number of
Candidates,
I maintain a wishlist[1] of ideas of various levels of craziness I would
like to see implemented and directions I would like Debian to go in.
Some of these should be moved to bugs, but at least they are somewhere
more public than the previous location (a damp dark corner of my brain).
Candidates,
What do you plan to work on if you are not elected?
Will not being elected de-motivate you?
Will you work on the things in your platform even if you are not
elected? Most of the things mentioned there are not DPL specific tasks.
Gergely Nagy, was not being elected in 2012
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Ubuntu does https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek - a set of
seminars on IRC to teach Ubuntu development. I'm not sure of how useful
that is (I've never attended it) and if we should do it too. AFAIK we
don't do that inside Debian.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
to make fixing RC bugs more rewarding. For example, in the Debian Project
News, we could list the most efficient RC bug squashers.
Just discussed this in #debian-publicity, if you can write a query to
run against UDD, the publicity team is
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Moray Allan wrote:
Earlier removals: I wonder if removing RC-buggy packages much earlier in the
freeze would help -- even if it's logically no different to saying they will
be removed later, it might wake up maintainers into bug-fixing action
faster, and
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'll start the vote during the weekend. But I need to think about
the name of the option, I wasn't very happy with it when I wrote
that.
I like it myself, makes for headlines like Debian welcomes everyone!.
--
bye,
pabs
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In some cases, of course, that isn't the case, and then things get
somewhat more complex. A good example on that is the systemd discussion
on -devel currently: making systemd the default and required init
implementation would, in the
Hi all,
Cast your mind back 5 years and forward 5 years.
What important opportunities have we missed out on? What important
things™ have we left by the roadside to our detriment? Which roads
have lead us astray? Why did we miss those and how can we notice
similar things in the future?
What are
Hi Stefano,
You covered some of this in your platform, however:
What worked during your previous term, what are you particularly glad
to have achieved?
What didn't work during your previous term, was there anything you
felt you missed or did sub-optimally?
--
bye,
pabs
Stefano you seem to be 5 years too late with this GR, fjp's AM report
looks like he was accepted primarily for his work on documentation and
translations:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2005/02/msg00017.html
In addition, as cate pointed out, the constitution already allows
DAM/FD to
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Kumar Appaiah
a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in wrote:
The word Debian Developer seems to have become synonymous with
those who package or write software for Debian. Whether that was
intentional or unintentional is not known to me, but this aspect is
what several
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
(And to answer to the comment ‘you do not need to be DPL for doing this’, that
is true, but if I make a bad score at this election, I will conclude that
there
are not many persons interested in what I propose anyway,
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Regarding my proposal, that is internal to Debian, I do not think that it is
impossible. What I propose is a way for package maintainers to signal that
their package is peripheral in the Debian system, in an opt-in
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be wrote:
The content isn't archived. Is this a problem? a feature?
Actually the text at least is archived (but not exactly like a mailing
list), an example:
http://planet.debian.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?terms=DPL
--
bye,
pabs
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
b) What qualifies a contributor to become a Debian Partner? What
qualifies a Debian Partner?
I don't think we have a formal list of Debian Partners (but I could be
wrong). I'm also not convinced we need one.
If we
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Margarita Manterola
margamanter...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Please breifly comment on how you see Debian's relationship with some
of these media.
I'm not sure of what's being asked here. Which
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
[ You've just won my prize for the most unexpected -vote question. ]
Thanks, I think :)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:17:06AM +0700, Paul Wise wrote:
Please breifly comment on how you see Debian's relationship with some
Dear candidates,
Debian has a lot of project communications media; lists, forums, IRC,
planet, bts, RT. There are also a lot of external communications media
covering Debian; news media, , social networks, blogs, microblogging
sites non-IRC chat, video sites and so on.
Which project and
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Margarita Manterola
margamanter...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
What tasks do you have in mind that you plan to delegate?
There are a bunch listed in my yet-to-be-published platform.
I wonder if
#include stdtimequestion.h
How much time do you currently devote to Debian? How will that amount
of time change for the DPL term? How will you balance your DPL time
and time for other Debian activities.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources.
Is mailing upstreams or writing debian/rules get-orig-source really so
problematic that you feel this is needed? The former is usually very
little work (and
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Joey Schulze j...@infodrom.org wrote:
I would rather like to keep binary firmware blobs outside of Debian/main
and maintain them in Debian/non-free with improved and easy ways to load
them during the installation.
This is what appears to be happening in Linux
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Having two sets of images doesn't make sense to me; the CD team have already
posted publically this cycle about the infrastructure challenges involved
with publishing those images that they already have to accomodate,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
--
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not DFSG ?
I believe this is because the GPL requires
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, regarding trolling by an minority. Besides that I think it speaks poor
to dismis arguments by calling them trolling, I'm happy that Robert and
Manoj save me from writing many mails, by mostly saying what I would have
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
Only
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
An example of such a package is glibc (bug#382175). I don't think that
removing SUNRPC support (and with it NIS, NFS and more) is a suitable
choice (unless
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wordpress;dist=stable
shows zero RC bugs, and I found two DSA-s for it, 1258 and 1502.
The remaining filed bugs which relate to security are explicitly marked by
the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Charles Plessy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(building non-free on official autobuilders is not allowed).
Untrue, you just need to get your package whitelisted since non-free
packages may not be legal to autobuild. You need to contact aba IIRC.
Not sure why you
On 24/09/2007, David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like when?
For a hint that it will be soon, see the bottom of:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2007/09/msg00065.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
98 matches
Mail list logo
