-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2012 07:49 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:50:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree
with you given the preponderance of evidence?
I agree and this is one
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, 18:22:07 EST, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl
wrote:
Op 06-08-12 00:22, Karl Goetz schreef:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, 23:04:20 EST, Paul van der Vlis
p...@vandervlis.nl mailto:p...@vandervlis.nl wrote:
I think this is all possible, except the point about the
Op 06-08-12 13:50, Karl Goetz schreef:
perhaps nonfree.debian.(org|net) could be used.
I don't think that's a good idea.
Debian would still distribute nonfree software.
With regards,
Paul.
--
Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen
http://www.vandervlis.nl
Bryan Baldwin br...@katofiad.co.nz writes:
I understand that Debian has a fully functional fully free subset of
the system.
The fully functional, fully-free system is identical with Debian. This
is because that is the *definition* of Debian, as defined by the Debian
project in their founding
Bryan Baldwin br...@katofiad.co.nz writes:
Taking ownership means stating plainly and publicly that contrib and
nonfree are part of Debian.
That would be the lie. They are not part of Debian.
Whether you mean the project, the system, the distribution, or any
other possible subdivisions and
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:40:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
That would be the lie. They are not part of Debian.
http://bugs.debian.org/zangband
http://packages.debian.org/zangband
http://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zangband.html
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=zangband
Do you
Clint Adams cl...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:40:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[The Debian project claiming that ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ are part
of Debian] would be the lie. They are not part of Debian.
Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree
with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/04/2012 08:12 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I agree with the FSF when they say: Debian also provides a
repository of nonfree software.
I don't believe that putting the non-free software
Op 03-08-12 17:42, Ben Finney schreef:
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes:
In the statutes of the organization we could write that the
organization will do what Debian decides.
How would that organisation be meaningfully distinct from the Debian
project, then?
It would make it
Op 03-08-12 22:12, Paul Wise schreef:
I don't believe that putting the non-free software on a different set
of infrastructure still maintained by Debian is meaningfully different
to what we have now. Debian would still be providing non-free/contrib
to our users and I imagine the FSF would
Op 03-08-12 17:46, Daniel Kahn Gillmor schreef:
Debian is already 100% free software.
In Debian there is a contrib and a non-free section. This is
officially not a part of Debian, but in reality it is (in my opinion).
The Debian project says those sections are not part of Debian,
11 matches
Mail list logo
