Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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. 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 problem are > >> > political... Which is the bane of debian. > >> > >> We are *NOT* Debian, thats all you need to get! > > > > Ok. So from what I understand you are worried there are packages that > > debian can distribute but only debian has the permission... If this is > > the case is there not a way you can ask debian to distribute just the non > > free stuff? ie. This project builds the packages from debian sources, > > debian hosts the non free stuff on one of their servers. > > Who is to say we are allowed to build the binaries? This isn't an answer to his question. He's saying why not let the AMD64 non-free be distributed from a Debian server, since you're original excuse was that "you aren't Debian". The answer is of course that you never even bothered to ask "Debian" for help or for a statement about your identity that would eliminate any theoretical legal threat. Hell, you could have just kept non-free on alioth and linked to it from AMD64's new location until a solution to the problem was found since non-free by itself is very small and the move away from alioth was because of space reasons, but no, even keeping the old location temporarily wasn't acceptable, non-free had to go, period. You saw a chance to get rid of non-free, even though its temporary, even though a majority of DDs have officially disagreed with you in a vote, and its only result is to annoy the AMD64 users until AMD64 returns to a "Debian" server, all because of your extremist ideology. I've been using Debian since pre-1.0 days when I got it off an Infomagic CD when I didn't have regular net access, but the times have changed, certainly the people around Debian have. I never would have thought that Debian would reach the point where it would deliberately and **pointlessly** annoy its own users because of software religion, instead of just trying to produce the best Linux distro possible, but its apparently come to that. No wonder Ubuntu looms large over Debian now, they're taking the best of Debian, but leaving behind the religious wars, and they will now gain strength and speed as Debian slows down due to endless religious infighting. Anyway, its been fun, but its time to move on now, apparently. Goodbye all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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 some one would waste time and > > money to sue the amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when > > they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE > > if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit? > > With that logic: Why does SCO still exist? All laywers are rational enough to know to not waste their time going after an organization THAT DOESN'T HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS. That's why nobody is going to care, Debian is broke anyway, there is no point in a lawsuit. > > > Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by > > Debian itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see > > that, if given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). > > No we cant. Just get a CLUE, we are *NOT* debian. We are as similar as > one can get, but the Debian stuff is on .d.o hosts. What difference does it make where we are located if Debian itself says we're part of them? > > user. I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put > > together a list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok. So why nothing in > > over a week? Are you holding up all of non-free just because of 1 > > package? > > No. Because of all the crap that is in there and because WE HAVE MORE > IMPORTANT THINGS TODO - which includes reading crap from someone who > just trolls on lists and not does any work for it. Nobody did any work before because it wasn't necessary. Now you're telling us there has been no work done at all on non-free. So you guys really had no plan at all to get non-free moved over, did you? So why didn't you just say that to begin with? > > > And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server > > we're on. > > We arent, get a clue. I'm not the clueless one here. > > > Hogwash again. We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're > > only talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move > > the amd64 port onto it. Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to > > moving *forward*, as opposed to running in place right now, which means > > the ftpmasters of debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for > > pure64 *Sid*, and move it over so we get synced up as Etch. Sarge can > > stay where it is, that's not the issue. Getting the *next* Debian AMD64 > > port onto debian.org is not going to take 3 years. > > Hell, please go and read what amd64.d.n is and you would see what a mess > you just wrote. amd64.d.n will exist as long as Sarge is there. And I've said twice now that I'm not talking about Sarge, I'm talking about Sid. This has nothing to do with release dates on anything, its just about co-location of the port and non-free. > And actually there was one who just went over the non-free crap, looking > at the licenses, giving us something to work with. > If non-free is so important for you - why did you wasted time writing > such mails and havent done that work yourself? Because the work has bloody well already been DONE! Everybody knows we are destined to return to debian.org, and we ARE Debian now in all but a technicality, a technicality that won't make a bit of difference in court and goes away with a simple statement from Debian that we are part of them, just not on their servers yet. But you guys never bothered to ask, you just threw out non-free without thinking about it, because it was something you wanted to do anyway. > > Thats my last mail in this thread, I have more important things todo. Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still mad that the DDs voted to keep it. Sure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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 distribute > > since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF > > over documentation. > > 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. Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and money to sue the amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit? This would happen in Germany, and the German judicial system hasn't yet become as screwed up as the American system. Besides, by the time they FIND OUT, we'll be officially part of Debian anyway! > 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 can, the question is what > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > and say it is mostly OK. Yes you can. That's my point. Non-free has already been vetted by Debian itself, and we are part of Debian. Any rational judge will see that, if given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below). > > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone > > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of > > course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" > > Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their > > server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For > > the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not > > the reason they're in non-free to begin with. > > The pine author would for one thing. Then load everything up but pine, if that's the only one you know of. I've already listed more packages that I know about, and I'm "just" a regular user. I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put together a list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok. So why nothing in over a week? Are you holding up all of non-free just because of 1 package? And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server we're on. > It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will > be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record > of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long > time for someone to start suing. Hogwash again. We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're only talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move the amd64 port onto it. Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to moving *forward*, as opposed to running in place right now, which means the ftpmasters of debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for pure64 *Sid*, and move it over so we get synced up as Etch. Sarge can stay where it is, that's not the issue. Getting the *next* Debian AMD64 port onto debian.org is not going to take 3 years. > In one point you are right though: > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > that users missed so far. Right, only the relatively few users of this technically unofficial and mostly unknown-to-the-world official Debian port have noticed you left non-free behind. So explain to us why you believe any copyright holder of one of these problem packages OUTSIDE OF DEBIAN is going to find out about this, and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net, because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)? Geez, compared to that, I'd say me getting hit by a meteorite when I next leave my apartment is a guaranteed certainty... heck, let me go write my will before I go to the grocery store. All you need is official blessing from Debian proper, in writing, or at least publicly announced on the net, that yes, the AMD64 port on amd64.debian.net is officially part of Debian, and isn't on debian.org only because of technical problems, but will be physically integrated soon (which is all true). With that, you don't have to worry about any lawsuits. So please stop with this weird excuse. > Please excuse us for not giving it higher > priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive mainta
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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 > > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are political... > > Which is the bane of debian. > > We are *NOT* Debian We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development on etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we will soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission for Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people! How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least set up non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure that the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought on-line now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because they are "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which make them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully open-source (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd agree to a change to the GPL or some other Free license). 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 distribute since they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over documentation. > thats all you need to get! Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many packages have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a week, with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" process is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know anything more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical? Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course, NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason they're in non-free to begin with. Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" become Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway (assuming Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, we're the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" support, and why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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 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. If you're having problems that even Debian doesn't have, that sounds a little disturbing. Like you're adopting a militant position for the AMD64 port that was even rejected (by the vote to keep non-free) in Debian itself? That's scary. Just put up non-free, and we can eliminate "problem" packages as they are identified, rather than keeping ALL of non-free offline until "someone" (who?) is "satisfied" (according to what rules?) that non-free is "ok". If its available from Debian's non-free repository then that is *by definition* "ok" for us, unless we are just now learning that the AMD64 port is going to take a more hostile position against non-DFSG software than even the minority within Debian itself? What gives? Nvidia users: you can try getting the nvidia packages from Ubuntu at deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hoary main restricted universe multiverse I don't know if they're compatible with Debian, but since Ubuntu still has Xfree in their archive too, they *should* be. I also don't remember which section they're in, probably 'restricted' but not sure. If all else fails, we could use their "source" file for the nvidia binary packages, and see if that builds for us (its a wrapper around nvidia's package that builds it The Debian Way - but I haven't tried it yet). The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's going on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian conference in the US?
Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 24 May 2003 09:51, Alan Shutko wrote: The citizens of the US have a little more power than the rest of the world, in that you have a *vote* as to who gets to fuck the rest of the world. Well, didn't work that way last time... They got their second choice. I never chose Little Napolean and he wasn't on my alternate list either. Please stop assuming everyone in a given country actually agrees with what their government has done or is doing. This is the most distressing aspect of this thread: Debian is (supposed to be) a group of intelligent, like-minded individuals whose individual nationality or origin is largely irrelevent. There should be only 2 requirements for a conference: someone is willing to sponsor it, and enough people are willing to come to make it worthwhile. This idea that conference locations need to be vetted based on the politics of the host country is dangerous and stupid. What Debian is about has nothing to do with individual nations or their politics. We should be better than this.
Re: Debian conference in the US?
Martin Schulze wrote: Aaron M. Ucko wrote: While convenient for american developers, there are rather a number of non-american developers who will not set foot on American soil, due in part to the DMCA and (I imagine) the apparent dangers to non-americans coming into the country. Two of the people I originally contacted said this too, but always in the third person. I ask again, who on this list actually still feels this way? I do. Even though the US may be an interesting country for holidays, its government has plastered so many limitations and violations of human rights that I don't believe I'll ever visit the US again. That's funny considering just how many people are risking their LIVES to get here. Then again, maybe its not, maybe its an insult to the ones who've died trying to get here over the years. The DMCA is one problem. One which is not just a US headache. The "EU Copyright Directive" is coming next, so where will all you Europeans run to when that law eventually comes into force? Greed among businesses is universal, there are plenty of European companies who love that Copyright Directive and are pushing it hard. Yes, I know, only two EU members have enacted it so far, but there is too much Big Money behind it for it to fail, its just a matter of time (according to the 2 articles I read). BTW, you are aware the DMCA lost its last case in court over here, right? The story is not over, my gut says it will at least be amended eventually. Surveillance and misuing personal data, e.g. gained from the flight agencies are another one. And this is also only a US problem? What about the public surveillance camaras in Britian and elsewhere? You think the Isrealis are laissez faire when it comes to who they allow on their planes? Big Brother is a problem everywhere, its only a problem here now because 9/11 was used as an excuse for a power grab. We have an independent judiciary that will eventually decide if they've grabbed too much. International politics is right another problem I dislike too much. One bad President and all of America is suddenly evil? At most he has only about 6 more years, and there's a real chance it will only be about 2, but you've already written us all off huh, even though this President didn't even win the majority vote, you're lumping us all together as miscreants with no chance at salvation? I dislike politics period, all governments tend to behave selfishly, erratically, and stupidly, but that doesn't mean I'm going to draw up a DO-NOT-VISIT-THIS-COUNTRY-BECAUSE-I-DON'T-LIKE-THEIR-LEADER list. That's just silly. > I rather stay a free person in a free country. So do I, and I like it just where I am. So do we REALLY want to turn this thread into yet another exercise in America bashing? If someone wants to sponsor a conference here, FINE, let them, for heaven's sakes! Most of the ones doing the bitching here would likely not come anyway because of the expense of getting here. And if the Europeans want to have a conference of their own, FINE, let them, for heaven's sake! Most Americans won't come not because we're boycotting French Fries, but because WE can't afford the travel either. Its not like there is some rule that says we can only have one conference at a time. This whole thread is getting ridiculous.
