HELP, PLEASE HELP!!! Hackers have put my user id into multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum. I can't unsubcribe with automated system because my user id is not in the main list. Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails. Please forward this request to the list owner. Thanks
--- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:46:32PM -0800, Thomas > Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking > people more familiar > > > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist. > > > > What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* > proposals without > > ascertaining their effect first. How many more > times are you going to > > make proposals before getting the facts down?? I > hope "none", but I > > fear otherwise. > > Debian is a collective effort. It is unreasonable > to expect a person to > vet all 6000 packages in the Distribution before > issuing a proposal. > One of the strengths of having a large and vital > Project is that this > kind of work can be parallelized. I did in fact > research the impact of > my proposals on several GNU manuals -- I don't know > of anything else > in Debian yet licensed under the GNU FDL -- and > discussed the impact in > my proposals. Failing to achieve 100% certainty in > a proposal's effects > is not the same thing as not ascertaining the effect > at all. > > > Does your proposal contradict DFSG 3 or not? > > That is not a determination that you or I am solely > empowered to make. > > > If it doesn't conflict: then it either is purely > clarificatory, or > > else it suggests restrictions beyond those > required by DFSG. > > And in practice Debian has applied several > restrictions in the past not > clearly found in the DFSG. A review of the > debian-legal archives will > turn up some, but there is no centralized > clearinghouse for this sort of > information; no effort to collect precedent into a > single location. > Anthony Towns encouraged doing so. That none yet > exists is a poor > reason to object to me starting one. > > > If you want it to be purely clarificatory, > > Not purely, no, and I was rock-solid clear about > this in the proposal. > > > If it's a new restriction (and I am not > intrinsically opposed to new > > restrictions), then I ask that it not restrict in > such a way as to > > cause packages currently in main to get thrown > out. > > Asked and answered. > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "So anything failing DFSG 3 that happens to be in > main due to an > oversight should be grandfather by my proposal? > That's what "no > problems" means, and would be grounds for rejecting > my proposal outright > as an attempt to repeal DFSG 3. > > No, the existence of packages with unmodifiable text > already in main is > something that should inform our process, but cannot > be determinative > because of the possibility that there is already > something in main that > should not be. My proposal is a guideline, not a > suicide pact. > > I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the > GNU Emacs Manual > (for example), and not reason backwards on the > assumption that > everything that is in main must belong there. > People find DFSG > violations in main regularly. The intent of my > proposal is not to grant > categorical immunity to any class of these > violations." > > > 1) Do you believe your proposal to contradict the > DFSG? > > No. > > > 2) If the answer to question (1) is "no", then do > you see your > > proposal as merely clarifying practice, or do > you see it as > > imposing an additional restriction beyond those > currently believed > > to obtain? > > Fallacious: false alternative. > > The proposal clarifies current practice, which is to > *RELAX* > the restrictions imposed by DFSG 3 and 4. It > furthermore attempts to > provide rules-of-thumb to help prevent us from > relaxing these guidelines > too greatly. > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "> As I understand it, a package that makes it into > [main] complies > > to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal > will allow > > packages that don't fully comply the DFSG to enter > [main], if > > the violation is not too grave. I consider this > inconsistent. > > Well, depends on what you mean by "comply". Under > what I understand to > be your interpretation of "comply", everything > licensed under the GPL or > LGPL would have to be removed from main because the > text of these > licensed is copyrighted and licensed under terms > that forbid > modification. I agree that this violates an > iron-fisted interpretation > of DFSG 3. However, the DFSG and Social Contract > were passed when many, > many GPL'ed packages were already part of Debian, > and as far as I know, > few people have ever proposed that GPL'ed software > be removed from > Debian. This isn't to say that non-modifiable text > isn't solely a > problem of the FSF's -- the BSD licenses are also > affected, and, in a > sense, anything with a copyright notice is as well. > Interpret DFSG 3 > *THAT* strictly and there wouldn't be much left *in* > Debian. Just > public domain materials. We may as well just fold > up shop and quit if > that's the case." > > -- > G. Branden Robinson | Human > beings rarely imagine a god > Debian GNU/Linux | that > behaves any better than a > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled > child. > http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert > Heinlein > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
