Hi Paul,
Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 14.39:02, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :
Very silent here.
In my opinion it's not a good idea to make Debian FSF-free at the
moment. But what we should do is to make Debian almost FSF-free and
make some steps in the good direction.
In my opinion we
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:22:55PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these
Hi Didier,
Op 23-11-12 15:22, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud schreef:
Hi Paul,
Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 14.39:02, Paul van der Vlis a écrit :
Very silent here.
In my opinion it's not a good idea to make Debian FSF-free at the
moment. But what we should do is to make Debian almost FSF-free and
On 11/24/12 05:03, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
An amusing comparison may be drawn between the FSF's rejection of
four-clause BSD licenses and the FSF's support of invariant sections
in the GFDL.
Documentation is not software. I wouldn't be surprised to find
differences when comparing licenses
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:18:33AM +1300, Bryan Baldwin angrily pronouced:
Documentation is not software.
They are one and the same. Software is documentation and vice versa. The
machinery upon which they run is what varies here.
Applying one to the other shows profound lack of thought and
Michael Gilbert said:
Correction: specific guidance.
Even if there may be other things that might be needed for FSF
endorsement, it seems that removing references to non-free software
from package control files and updating the website et al [0] is both
specific and provides a good place to
On 23/11/12 10:38, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
[...]
As for these non-Debian pieces existing on the same hardware - the FSF
recommends and distributes Trisquel, a Debian rebranding at one
remove, and yet, if you take a cursory glance at at the places where
Trisquel may be downloaded, you will
Quiliro Ordóñez said:
Please report that as a bug. Any non-free software that is included
on an FSF-approved distro is considered a critical bug.
I think they're perhaps referring to mirrors that also distribute
other things. Notice that the statement was very carefully worded to
say at the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jason Self wrote:
Michael Gilbert said:
Correction: specific guidance.
Even if there may be other things that might be needed for FSF
endorsement, it seems that removing references to non-free software
from package control files and updating the website et
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:59:48PM -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
Please report that as a bug. Any non-free software that is included on
an FSF-approved distro is considered a critical bug.
It's not included as a part of Trisquel, but alongside it on the same
hardware, which is a sticking point
Mason Loring Bliss said:
It's not included as a part of Trisquel, but alongside it on the
same hardware.
Can you point to a concrete example? The only one I can think of would
be mirrors that also mirror other GNU/Linux distributions, thereby
picking up the non-free software from those other
11 matches
Mail list logo
