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 AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn wrote: > > 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. Nope. It is guaranteed that all packages in the main archive are distributable by anybody, whether they're the Debian project or not (DFSG#8). This is not necessarily the case for non-free packages, hence they'd have to be examined individually to determine whether the licence was acceptable. Cameron. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:26:20AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > 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. Not necessary. For 'sattrack' for example, I got permission for us to distribute it in Debian. But I don't know if that extends to Debian-AMD64 (an unofficial distribution) and Ubuntu would certainly have to ask for their own permission. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to > provide non-free, not harder. Permission to redistribute some bits of non-free may be specific to Debian. Alternatively, packages may be buildable but no permission to rebuild them granted. There's all sorts of potential issues with non-free licenses. This isn't part of some sort of anti-non-free campaign. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: >> 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. No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier. There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it" - which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the same. Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever else some idiot thought about for his license. > The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian. No. > Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not > support for, non-free. I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know. I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its not added right away. > The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's > going > on. Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. -- bye Joerg Lalalala ... Ich bin die Sponsoren-Schlampe - Wer hat heute Lust? pgpF1r9XHQtMf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote: > > >> 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. > > No, not beeing Debian makes it only harder, not easier. > There may be stuff in it with "Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute it" > - which makes it undistributable for anyone else, except he gets the > same. > Or stuff you aren't allowed to built and then distribute or whatever > else some idiot thought about for his license. > > > The only problem with non-free is the internal politics of Debian. > > No. > > > Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem providing access to, but not > > support for, non-free. > > I dont care what/how they do it. Maybe they analyzed it, or just ignore > it and wait if someone plays law-games with them, i dont know. > I dont want law-games for me or for our mirrors or for the place where > we host the machine, thats not worth the stuff thats in there, so its > not added right away. > > > The best thing is to keep the packages you have now until we find what's > > going > > on. > > 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. Ed Tomlinson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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! -- bye Joerg "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. pgpSReOMCcjL7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn writes: > 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. One of the common reasons for packages to be in non-free is that they have "non-commercial" clauses in their licenses. This means that Debian can distribute them free of charge but they cannot be put on CDs and sold. In some cases they may not even be _used_ for anything but "personal use". Others contain clauses forbidding their use for certain purposes or by certain agencies. The only thing you can say for sure about all the packages in non-free is that Debian can make them available for downloading. Anyone contemplating redistributing non-free should examine the license in every single package. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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... Right. > 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. Which will happen with the move of amd64 into the debian archive - but that wont happen for sarge. In the meantime someone pointed me to http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/ where someone already did the work to classify the non-free crap. Which means that one amd64 guy now needs to sit down, kicking out anything thats undistributable for us, and then let us include it. (As *one random* example, distributed-net is undistribtable for us, as we arent Debian). *I* wont do it, I have more important things to do. I will only help with the final import into our archive after someone did the work. -- bye Joerg (Irgendwo von heise.de): Jesus war ein typischer Student: - Lebte bis er 30 war bei den Eltern, - Hatte lange Haare - Wenn er mal was tat dann wars ein Wunder -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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. Thanks Ed Tomlinson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ed Cogburn writes: >> 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. > > One of the common reasons for packages to be in non-free is that they have > "non-commercial" clauses in their licenses. This means that Debian can > distribute them free of charge but they cannot be put on CDs and sold. In > some cases they may not even be _used_ for anything but "personal use". > Others contain clauses forbidding their use for certain purposes or by > certain agencies. The only thing you can say for sure about all the > packages in non-free is that Debian can make them available for > downloading. Anyone contemplating redistributing non-free should examine > the license in every single package. > -- > John Hasler More specifically: Debian can distribute those sources and debs already available. Debian may not be allowed to rebuild the source or build it for more archs (or distribute any debs, only source, as is the case for pine). MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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? Take pine for example. Distribution of binaries is specifically prohibited. Only source can be in non-free. If we just add non-free to the buildd and upload that anywhere we violate the license and risk getting sued. For other sources the maintainer has special permission to build and upload binaries for Debian but again we don't. And yes, Debian has the exact same problem. That is why non-free is not autobuild even in Debian. > Thanks > Ed Tomlinson MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 You said it yourself. > 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. Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? 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. >> 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? We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone has to do the work". > 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. > 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! 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. 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. Please excuse us for not giving it higher priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance. MfG Goswin -- 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 maintainance. But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again? So you've wasted a whole week on this, *but* you'd rather be doing "vital" work. Uh-huh. Well, I do agree with you on one thing Goswin, we all have important things that need to be done, so please stop this pointless exe
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > 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. Odd. I'm a rational person, and I don't know that. Maybe I'm not really rational. I feel rational though. Hmm. > > 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). Ah, there we go with that word again... > > 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, Well, first off, you just posted about it on a public list...duh. > and for some irrational reason bothers to sue amd64.debian.net, > because it isn't on debian.org (but its contents *is* Debian)? And there's that word AGAIN. > 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. Well, we can hope, because then this stupid thread might die. > 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. And you can categorically state this on what authority? Can we assume you're a lawyer in whatever municipality has jurisdiction? Can you even tell me what municipality has jurisdiction? Sheesh, you might have a decent argument if you constrained yourself to facts instead of assertions... > But you do have the time to re-verify non-free all over again? So you've > wasted a whole week on this Oh my. A *whole week*? I can't believe it. Compared to how long it took to release sarge, that's... let's see... er... insignificant. That's the word I'm looking for. You know what - I don't give a shit about this subject, but I'm getting tired of posts like this one. Chill out. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpfSDySjC09N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > 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). Are you a lawyer? If not, I'm not particularly inclined to believe you on this count. > > > 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. It's the only one we know of /now/. There might be more. That's the whole problem. [rest of blatter snipped, doesn't make sense anyway] -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
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? > 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. > 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. > And what is the point? We are Debian. It doesn't matter which server we're > on. We arent, get a clue. > 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 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? Thats my last mail in this thread, I have more important things todo. -- bye Joerg Some AM after a mistake: Sigh. One shouldn't AM in the early AM, as it were. -- 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 Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:34:57AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote: Stop acting like such a spoiled child. You want non-free for amd64? Host it yourself until it gets moved officially. Don't like it? You've qualified for a full refund on your purchase. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. Obviously it isn't an answere but a questions. One designed to show him the errors of his ways. The project can't just build the packages from non-free since nothing says we have the right to. And in fact there are known cases the specificaly say we DONT. Wether Debian distributes it or someone else doesn't even figure into that. > 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 Hell, no. Why would we ever ask? We also never got those negative responses and rejections about this from the ftp-masters, the DPL, the DAM, the RMs, the Security team, We never asked for amd64 to be added to sid over a year ago and never filed a bug about it. No never. > 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. Actualy no. Space reasons actualy never figured into that for me. The new system is just some 10-20 times faster, has the right infrastructure, the right software, someone with root on the project. And the old location is still there. Even now it still has non-free although the old main/contrib parts have been removed. There are also still at least 2 mirrors of it with public access as you might have seen if you had bothered to check. > 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. No DD has voted on the legality of a project outside of debian blidnly building and distributing packages from non-free. And even if they had it would not have any weight. When it came to adding the packages from alioth into the DAK and we hit non-free we took a step back, looked, saw that we can't just add it and decided to put it off till someone can look it over in detail. As you might have known if you had volunteered, joined the irc channel, help patch things together, discussed solutions, etc. I didn't see you doing any of that. Not now and not in the last 2 years. > 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 And Ubuntu also leaves behind suspectible non-free packages. > as Debian slows down due to endless religious infighting. Anyway, its been > fun, but its time to move on now, apparently. Goodbye all. Let me ask just one questions: Do you have any idea who I or the other debian-amd64 members are and what we have done the last 2 years? You might also want to check those names against db.debian.org. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Hi everybody, I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian (including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger to being sued? Accordingly with Goswin that's nothing about complain, only the main server of the distribution don't have non-free, the main server of non-free packages is still being alioth. I hope that packages still having the same process to update-compile as before, is'n it? Have a nice day. -- Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible; es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad. Kierkegaard Jaime Ochoa Malagón Integrated Technology Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still > mad that the DDs voted to keep it. Sure. I *am* an AMD64 user, and I can completely understand *why* they are being cautious. You, however, are just being plain rude to the NON-OFFICIAL amd64 porting team. If you're *THAT* in need of non-free, add in the i386 sources line for it and *BUILD THEM YOURSELF*. The amd64 port is *NOT* official yet, and while there's a release cycle going, I'd rather the developers GOT ON WITH THE RELEASE, than waste time on the packages in non-free, just what exactly do you need from there that you can't build anyway? Also, if you're *really* that bothered, why not use Ubuntu which has *official* support for amd64? (I know my reasons for sticking to debian unstable, do you?) Thanks, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCgcGMEh8oWxevnjQRAp12AKCccqkD4DW4Y7nzmI91I59QkuvyzACgptZM Dh8hkXXWT+Ko7idWgxnqAok= =VLgs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
* Ed Cogburn | We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! I can't see that you've done anything at all for the AMD64 port, nor are you a DD. Please go troll somewhere else. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Em Qua, 2005-05-11 Ãs 03:07 -0500, Jaime Ochoa MalagÃn escreveu: > Hi everybody, Hello, > > I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian > (including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger > to being sued? Non-free is only *distributed* by Debian, it's *not* Debian. The software in there does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so, yes, you can have just about (almost) anything there. According to the DFSG, for example, permission must *not* be given specifically to Debian, but again, software in non-free doesn't necessarily comply with that, so Debian may have the permission to distribute specific software, while you may not. That's why you should read the license of every single package from non-free you deal with before using, redistributing, whatever. Yes, you may be sued. Regards, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
