The harassing phone calls and nasty collection notices can be stopped.
Late notices and collection calls will be ended. We have pioneered an advanced system of proven strategies that will get the creditors and debt collectors off your back for good Our debt termination program has legally stopped millions of dollars worth of debt from being collected. check out our Elimination Program here http://www.allengagingproduct.com/e2/ address on site along with no more feature ' Do you understand? Perfectly! cried Rob, taking the machine from the Demon with unfeigned delight. This is really wonderful, and I'm awfully obliged to you! Don't mention it, returned the Demon, dryly These three gifts you may amuse yourself with for the next week
Re: Two Macedonias
siward wrote: I think the people of Greek Macedonia have a different objection : they were always called Macedonia, and now another region is trying to take their name away from them, which is offensive. This makes me laugh. It is possible that the peope of their northernly neighbour state also used to call their region Macedonia. Their republic has only come into existence recently, and this may only have been possible by their perception of them being part of a people that are 'Macedonians', that therefore obviously live in 'Macedonia'. LOL 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. I like that one, but, as Steve Langasek said, in the namespace of autonomous territories, there is no collision at all. Regards, ogi
Re: Two Macedonias
On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 10:39, Ognyan Kulev wrote: siward wrote: I think the people of Greek Macedonia have a different objection : they were always called Macedonia, and now another region is trying to take their name away from them, which is offensive. This makes me laugh. I would really like to know why this looks funny to you, but I'll refrain from starting such a discussion in these lists. If you indeed have a reason, I'd be interested to know it, please mail me privately. It is possible that the peope of their northernly neighbour state also used to call their region Macedonia. Their republic has only come into existence recently, and this may only have been possible by their perception of them being part of a people that are 'Macedonians', that therefore obviously live in 'Macedonia'. LOL Right, it's obvious that you reject his views of the matter. However, I'm not going to trouble the lists with another flamewar on this matter. I think we can all agree that right now the issue is pretty much settled, but it would be best if there were no further insulting comments (I take 'LOL' as one). 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. I like that one, but, as Steve Langasek said, in the namespace of autonomous territories, there is no collision at all. I agree on that one. Konstantinos
Re: Two Macedonias
(Please CC me, I am not on -project) On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 04:45, siward wrote: Hi all, The government of Greece, and presumably also the people of the Greek Province Macedonia, strongly object to the former yugoslav republic Macedonia being called Macedonia. The Greek government seems to do this from the point of view that it might obscure the perception of naturalness of the right of the government to decide what happens in Greek Macedonia. I think the people of Greek Macedonia have a different objection : they were always called Macedonia, and now another region is trying to take their name away from them, which is offensive. I'm glad you see the point. Being a Greek and knowing that politicians have seriously messed this issue, it's nice to see that someone actually understands it and its implications. However, it is my opinion that such issues end up only producing confusion and raising nationalistic barriers amongst people whose common goal is the creation of the best distro. I think Debian has only 2 choices here : 1) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Macedonia'. 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. The details of how exactly these names should be can be bickered over bitterly yet, but we do need to make the distinction sooner or later, and so we would better do it right now. The reason i have used the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia' to illustrate the choices above is that they are both names to be proud of. For a start, I would personally choose 'Macedonian Republic' and 'Macedonia', since as you correctly state, the Greek name has preexisted the republic. Calling the Greek part 'Greek Macedonia' would seem superfluous. But if it must be so, the pair 'Macedonian Republic' or 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia' would do, at least until the name issue resolves once and for all (it is my understanding that both parties are in the process of reinitiating discussions in this matter). However, as others have already stated before me, there might not be a conflict here and no change necessary. I think, but it is only my half-informed opinion, that there is a real chance that the Greek government would take actions against Debian if Debian did not call Greek Macedonia 'Macedonia' ; for a government that forced katharevousa this seems but a little thing. Afaik Debian does not have an entry for that in any language- or country-chooser (yet), so we don't seem to have a problem here. The event that Greek government will take actions is highly unlikely, since they are (partly) responsible for all this mess today. Furthermore, i think that the greek nation and culture (and socker team :-) are an asset to this world, and i would not want to unnecessarily antagonize the Greeks. Thank you for your kind words, though I hardly think that this would make any difference right now. The common feeling amongst Greeks about this matter, is of strong disappointment and distrust for the politicians who took this issue and not only failed to resolve it, but actually made two nations that have lived next to each other for centuries, feel hostile to each other. I wish that this controversy will not prevent the people on either side of the border to live in peace with their (more or less distant) neighbours. Me too, in the end I strongly believe -and hope- that these issues can be resolved. Konstantinos
Re: Two Macedonias
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: I would really like to know why this looks funny to you, but I'll refrain from starting such a discussion in these lists. If you indeed have a reason, I'd be interested to know it, please mail me privately. I know that the history of Macedonia is taught differently in Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, and Greek. I apologize for the too impulsive reply and I'll try to not make such in the future. Regards, ogi
Re: Two Macedonias
On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 11:44, Christian Perrier wrote: 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. I like that one, but, as Steve Langasek said, in the namespace of autonomous territories, there is no collision at all. Well, in my opinion, if we decide changing FYROM to something in iso-codes (and thus, as a direct consequence, in debian-installer), we should use Macedonia. And, well, I'm pretty sure that most Greek users indeed share this advice. I'm already sure of this for one of them..:) Hm, I can't say I'm overjoyed with this choice. If this needs to be changed, I'd prefer the distiction to be made, 'Republic of Macedonia' would be far better and avoid unwanted comments from both sides. Konstantinos
Re: Why is debian.org email so unreliable?
On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 12:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
So you would welcome a [EMAIL PROTECTED] That (or
another delay of your choosing) should solve the above concern, and
at the same time please us annoying folks who keep yelling don't
use d-p for this and that.
No, but i've taken your advice and replied to -project.
Please respond to this, everybody - on a public mailinglist like
debian-project. You hereby have my permission to quote my part of
this email wherever, and I am sure Konstantinos will permit quoting
his as well - right, Konstantinos ('cause you do not reveal *what*
is kept secret, and you wouldn't have a problem revealing that we
do have _a_ secret, do you?)?
I don't consider delaying publicizing a problem the same as keeping a
secret, but of course i don't have problem.
(please CC me, I am not on -project).
Konstantinos
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-23 02:43:24 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And again, I don't believe the freedom to prosecute with patent accusations is an important freedom to protect, any more than freedom to take my software proprietary. I think it's valid and legitimate for a free license to restrict this freedom. I don't believe that the freedom to bear arms in urban areas is an important freedom to protect, but it's not one that copyright law has much to do with. My use of copyright law should leave it unchanged. This is preservation of independent things. It's not protection, just as it's not persecution. That is more-or-less the line I'm arguing we take with patent law too. I don't think it's right that it can apply to software anywhere, but deliberately muddling copyrights and patents any more seems a basic wrong move. As you noted, there are implementation problems too. This seems likely, as I have been told many times by experts and real lawyers that patent law and copyright law are very different. Because I trust their words, I'm suspicious of people who try to combine them. It makes me uncomfortable: I've years of dealing with copyright, but much less experience with patents, as they hardly touch me. Finally, there seems little need to combine them, so what's the incentive driving authors who do? People taking your work, enhancing it, and distributing binaries without source, is not a copyright-based problem at all, but it's still dealt with via copyright. It seems like a copyright-based problem to me, because that would be the law People would be using to restrict the work in your situation. In the absence of a copyright permission for it, can it be done legally? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I don't believe that the freedom to bear arms in urban areas is an important freedom to protect, but it's not one that copyright law has much to do with. My use of copyright law should leave it unchanged. This is preservation of independent things. It's not protection, just as it's not persecution. I suspect there's consensus among the project that freedom to abuse patent law is not a freedom worth protecting. Likewise, there's consensus that freedom to take your code proprietary is not a freedom worth protecting. I don't think there's anything remotely like consensus about freedom to bear arms; it's likely that a lot of people in Debian believe it's worth protecting and a lot of others don't. (The lack of consensus on this issue is due to the fact that the issue has no relation to free software, of course; it's not a subject that free software authors have any common ground on.) As you noted, there are implementation problems too. This seems likely, as I have been told many times by experts and real lawyers that patent law and copyright law are very different. Because I trust their words, I'm suspicious of people who try to combine them. It makes me uncomfortable: I've years of dealing with copyright, but much less experience with patents, as they hardly touch me. I don't think the problems are a result of patent and copyright law being different; it doesn't seem like these clauses are actually mixing patent and copyright law at all. They might be going beyond copyright law and into EULA territory--I'm not sure--but they don't seem to invoke or reference patent law at all. I'm tending to think the implementation problems do exist, though. Finally, there seems little need to combine them, so what's the incentive driving authors who do? I think you understand the desire of free software authors to protect their work against patents in any reasonable way possible. It's true enough that there are few actual known cases of free software being shut down through stealth patents; it's for this reason that I probably wouldn't use these clauses in my own work (preferring simple, permissive licenses, myself), but I can understand that not being convincing to everyone. As far as we all can tell, patents still do remain a major threat hanging over all of our heads. People taking your work, enhancing it, and distributing binaries without source, is not a copyright-based problem at all, but it's still dealt with via copyright. It seems like a copyright-based problem to me, because that would be the law People would be using to restrict the work in your situation. In the absence of a copyright permission for it, can it be done legally? If I take your work, enhance it, give out binaries and refuse to give out source, it's not the law restricting the work; it's my withholding of source. The GPL fixes this by means of copyright law (GPL#3), even though the problem isn't based in copyright. (Of course, there are related problems which are based in copyright, such as distributing modifications under a restrictive license, but that's GPL#6.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Two Macedonias
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 11:44, Christian Perrier wrote: 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. I like that one, but, as Steve Langasek said, in the namespace of autonomous territories, there is no collision at all. Well, in my opinion, if we decide changing FYROM to something in iso-codes (and thus, as a direct consequence, in debian-installer), we should use Macedonia. And, well, I'm pretty sure that most Greek users indeed share this advice. I'm already sure of this for one of them..:) Hm, I can't say I'm overjoyed with this choice. If this needs to be changed, I'd prefer the distiction to be made, 'Republic of Macedonia' would be far better and avoid unwanted comments from both sides. Konstantinos I think the style in Australia is The former Republic of Macedonia. I've always though it peculiar, but I think our Greeks are happy with it, and the second bigest Greek city in the world is in Australia. Macedonia is a town in Victoria:-) -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
Re: Two Macedonias
Vassilis Grigoriadis wrote: According to the EU Resolution FYROM cannot have the name Macedonia. If you plan to use this name then you have to add in a parenthesis the word Slav: Macedonia (Slav) I (as a Slavic) think that this name is very good. Regards, ogi
Re: How to solve problem X least secretly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-09-2004 11:51, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
| On ??? 23 ??? 2004 12:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
|
|So you would welcome a [EMAIL PROTECTED] That (or
|another delay of your choosing) should solve the above concern, and
|at the same time please us annoying folks who keep yelling don't
|use d-p for this and that.
|
|
| No, but i've taken your advice and replied to -project.
Thanks.
|Please respond to this, everybody - on a public mailinglist like
|debian-project. You hereby have my permission to quote my part of
|this email wherever, and I am sure Konstantinos will permit quoting
|his as well - right, Konstantinos ('cause you do not reveal *what*
|is kept secret, and you wouldn't have a problem revealing that we
|do have _a_ secret, do you?)?
|
|
| I don't consider delaying publicizing a problem the same as keeping a
| secret, but of course i don't have problem.
Let me summarize (at the risk of revealing stuff discussed behind closed
doors - you only quoted me, not your own message):
~ * Recently a subject X was opened for discussion on debian-private.
~ * Some, including me, felt that there was no need for X to be held
secret, and we complained about it.
~ * You argued, Konstantinos, that X required secrecy until fixed.
~ * I proposed the above timelock secrecy mailinglist.
So, why not?
I assume we all agree that debian-private is a hack and should be
avoided as much as possible: We state in our policy that we will not
hide problems, and as we nowhere state that we will hide other studd
than that I assume that we won't hide anything but what is absolutely
necessary to operate our otherwise open and transparent structure.
If a technical problem I suggest solving it by finding a technical solution.
If a political problem, then please explain to me what it is (as I
assume our agenda isn't secret).
| (please CC me, I am not on -project).
Done!
~ - Jonas
P.S.
I have swiftly changed the subject of this thread - hope noone noticed...
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBUq4wn7DbMsAkQLgRAjuqAJ0T8JJmAcRd/Qs8LdSyR0XDGlqLyQCgmEFt
iyC9qb7EgP0PzfU5lqFrxb8=
=u0Ka
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:43:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 02:09:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Respectively: the freedom to prosecute with and defend yourself against patent accusations; the freedom to bear arms; and the freedom to use nuclear technology. Of course, not all jurisdictions allow those freedoms, but that's determined by laws, not by copyright licences. And again, I don't believe the freedom to prosecute with patent accusations is an important freedom to protect, any more than freedom to take my software proprietary. I think it's valid and legitimate for a free license to restrict this freedom. Same old bogus comparison; you never *had* the freedom to take the software proprietary, so you can't protect it. You *did* have the freedom to prosecute with patent accusations. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Two Macedonias
Vassilis Grigoriadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am putting the Resolution so you can read it. I'm sorry to say so, but if Debian does not comply to the resolution of the foreign ministers of the EU than i will be in the unpleasent position to bring the subject to the EU court. (snip) Taking into account Resolution (95) 23 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1995 at the 547th meeting of Ministers' Deputies, the Secretarial is hereby instructed to use the following references provisionally for all purposes within the Council of Europe pending settlement of the difference which has arisen over the name of the State in question. They are to be used in all documents prepared by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. Debian is not a document prepared by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. As a result, it is not bound by this resolution. Taking the subject to the EU court would not result in Debian being obliged to change the name used. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Two Macedonias
On 2004-09-23 11:33:49 +0100 Vassilis Grigoriadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry to say so, but if Debian does not comply to the resolution of the foreign ministers of the EU than i will be in the unpleasent position to bring the subject to the EU court. Matthew Garrett has already pointed out that this resolution does not bind debian. If we did comply, could Debian be charged in court elsewhere, because the constitutional name seems to be Republic of Macedonia? As far as I know, the Greek province Macedonia is not a republic in itself, and the Bulgarian province is officially named something else, so their consitutional name should not confuse anyone. The alternate view is that we should follow the ISO naming, but I'm not sure if we already do or not for other states. I suspect decisions like ISO, EU and so on were originally taken while the Republic of Macedonia had other concerns, including Greece's blockade. I suspect any EU court worth its salt would sort out EU member Slovenija's use of Republic of Macedonia before hearing a prosecution of a volunteer-run project, but I could be wrong. The resolution quoted dates from before Slovenija joined: I wonder if that was part of the motive for it? Please include debian-project in your reply. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:25:21PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: And again, I don't believe the freedom to prosecute with patent accusations is an important freedom to protect, any more than freedom to take my software proprietary. I think it's valid and legitimate for a free license to restrict this freedom. Same old bogus comparison; you never *had* the freedom to take the software proprietary, so you can't protect it. You *did* have the freedom to prosecute with patent accusations. By that line of reasoning, you never had the freedom to use my software while at the same time alleging that it violates your patents, and I don't believe this is a permission that a free software license needs to grant, just as permission to take my software proprietary isn't a permission that a free software license needs to grant. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Re: Re: Two Macedonias
Another solution could be to wait and keep the name as FYROM, since in a few months the negotiations between Greece and FYROM will start and will have as their subject the name of the country. Just another solution, Vassilis Grigoriadis -Original Message- From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vassilis Grigoriadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:04:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Re: Two Macedonias On 2004-09-23 11:33:49 +0100 Vassilis Grigoriadis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry to say so, but if Debian does not comply to the resolution of the foreign ministers of the EU than i will be in the unpleasent position to bring the subject to the EU court. Matthew Garrett has already pointed out that this resolution does not bind debian. If we did comply, could Debian be charged in court elsewhere, because the constitutional name seems to be Republic of Macedonia? As far as I know, the Greek province Macedonia is not a republic in itself, and the Bulgarian province is officially named something else, so their consitutional name should not confuse anyone. The alternate view is that we should follow the ISO naming, but I'm not sure if we already do or not for other states. I suspect decisions like ISO, EU and so on were originally taken while the Republic of Macedonia had other concerns, including Greece's blockade. I suspect any EU court worth its salt would sort out EU member Slovenija's use of Republic of Macedonia before hearing a prosecution of a volunteer-run project, but I could be wrong. The resolution quoted dates from before Slovenija joined: I wonder if that was part of the motive for it? Please include debian-project in your reply. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
Hello, The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? I feel that it would be a mistake to omit both versions from Sarge when it is released. I am running apt-proxy 1.3.0 stable on a Woody box to serve all my local boxes with updates, and another box running Sarge which is building CD ISO's using jigdo. Both are old Pentium boxes fitted with large hard drives, neither is overworked, and they can be left to get on with the job together. Apt-proxy appears to be the only system able to collect software from a list of selected parent mirrors and then build a local partial mirror, and I have arranged my selection so that those supplied by my ISP and local academic sources are checked first rather than load the Debian servers. My apt-proxy cache does not require local boxes to specify a series of parent mirrors, just the software details. -- Chris Bell
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? See here: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=apt-proxy ~ - Jonas All of those reports refer to the version in Sid-testing, which is a complete re-write. Are there any reasons why the version 1.3.0 now working in Woody will not work, and can not be included, in Sarge? -- Chris Bell
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 18:42, Chris Bell wrote: | On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: | | |On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: | ||The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the || development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why || neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? | |See here: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=apt-proxy | | |~ - Jonas | | | |All of those reports refer to the version in Sid-testing, which is a | complete re-write. Are there any reasons why the version 1.3.0 now working | in Woody will not work, and can not be included, in Sarge? Did you follow the link to the bugreports discussing this? ~ - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ ~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBUwbsn7DbMsAkQLgRAplzAJ9TmVFjmrVsolP2HV1PCmcB3FbPiQCfRg8H XzeBNcEJpul3zGGKH7l7NYk= =Y1Yo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:53:39PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Thank you for not abusing our secret mailinglist for irrelevant stuff like pointing fingers at (cute?) attempts to follow our Social Contract. Feel free to quote my parts of this email in public! I see nothing secret in any of this email, and thus encourage responses to be targeted debian-project instead of this secret list. Obviously, debian-private contains many messages that have no secret content. This message was another example of this fact. It is wrong for a person to equate d-private == secret_content. The fact that we have rules concerning d-private seems to be the fly in the ointment. Secrecy is only one rule. Perhaps we should be talking about the rules in general. If a concensus developed about the rules, I think we would see less bickering on d-private. I doubt if we could eliminate it all, because flamage was created in our geek community ;-) Richard P.S. I barely keep up with d-private. So if you want me to see d-project replies, then CC me because I will not subscribe to this list too.
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-22 15:05:00 +0100 Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a way to use patenting against itself? For all the times I have seen someone suggest that, I have yet to see a good way to do that. [...] I don't know patent law well enough to answer. I have mostly created literary works and performance works, which are covered by copyright and not patents here (for now). I suspect people used to ask is there a way to use copyright against itself? [...] Reviewing patents yourself opens the possibility of willful infringement if you are wrong about what is covered. Is the wilful infringement damage increase peculiar to the US? (C) change the law so fewer issued patents cover software. [...] (C) may be practical, and people are working to do that. If they succeed, most of the license termination clauses will have little or no legal effect. I'm not sure that's true for the patent claim terminates copyright licence case. Similarly, why should copyright not be used to protect free software use from gun abuse and nuclear technology abuse? No one has tried. [...] Are you sure? I think I've seen various field of use restrictions attempted. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:55:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 23-09-2004 19:30, Richard A. Hecker wrote: ...snip... | It is wrong for a person to equate d-private == secret_content. Somewhat true. The problem is that emails not explicitly declared differently must be kept secret. We are lazy so we do not subscribe to additional lists but rely on debian-private where we got subscribed by default. We are lazy and just want to get hold of the developers so we use debian-private. We are lazy and do not declare each and every time content posted to debian-private is allowed quoted elsewere. What I see is a practical situation of laziness. I also see a practical solution: ~ * Subscribe all developers by default to debian-project. ~ * For each mail posted to debian-private require a one-line explanation of why it should be treated as a secret (and if only for a while then what would trigger release of the secrecy-lock). I see this secrecy-lock as a byproduct of d-private and not the main goal. As you acknowledge above, laziness is the issue. Your solution requires lazy people to jump through an extra step. | If a concensus developed about the rules, I think we would | see less bickering on d-private. I doubt if we could eliminate it all, | because flamage was created in our geek community ;-) I am _not_ talking about noise. Flamage or not, we should not keep things secret unless really really necessary. I am trying to avoid unnecessary secrets. Please do not mix that with avoiding noise! As I said, secrecy is a byproduct. We treat it with an all-or-nothing type of rule. If common sense were truly common, we might have that concensus on the rules. BTW, I think your solution might cut down on the noise. But I know you want to focus on secrecy instead of noise ;-) Richard P.S. I agree that secrets should really really be necessary before we classify them as such.
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? See here: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=apt-proxy This is sub-optimal. Since the package IS in woody, we probably should have it also in sarge, if only for security updates to be possible. I really think the woody version should be uploaded to t-p-u. Yes, it is hideously buggy. But unless we are deprecating apt-proxy completely, it really should not disappear from stable while remaining on old-stable (and thus being a problem for people doing upgrades) and sid. Please consider uploading (a recompiled just to make sure) version of what is in woody to t-p-u. If any security fixes were made to the apt-proxy in sid, please backport those to the old version in woody and upload it to t-p-u. If there is an intermediate version (someone mentioned 1.3.6?) that is better, then please update that one instead to t-p-u. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? See here: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=apt-proxy ~ - Jonas All of those reports refer to the version in Sid-testing, which is a complete re-write. Are there any reasons why the version 1.3.0 now working in Woody will not work, and can not be included, in Sarge? -- Chris Bell
Re: Re: Two Macedonias
According to the EU Resolution FYROM cannot have the name Macedonia. If you plan to use this name then you have to add in a parenthesis the word Slav: Macedonia (Slav) I am putting the Resolution so you can read it. I'm sorry to say so, but if Debian does not comply to the resolution of the foreign ministers of the EU than i will be in the unpleasent position to bring the subject to the EU court. And by the way we do not share your opinion regarding two macedonians. The subject is political and extremely sensitive. The country of FYROM declared as Macedonia by Tito (the dictator) in order to take the northern part of Greece called Macedonia from the ancient times. Besides all Macedonians believed in the Greek Gods, spoke the Greek language, wrote in greek, had greek names (Alexander is in greek the man who repeals, the strong man) and took part in the Olympic Games (only greeks were allowed to participate). THE RESOLUTION: EXECUTIVE BOARD CONSEIL EXECUTIF F.B (2004) OS 2 March 2004 Note for the attention of the members of the Executive Board References concerning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and persons belonging to a minority or speaking a minority language outside the country Taking into account Resolution (95) 23 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1995 at the 547th meeting of Ministers' Deputies, the Secretarial is hereby instructed to use the following references provisionally for all purposes within the Council of Europe pending settlement of the difference which has arisen over the name of the State in question. They are to be used in all documents prepared by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and independent monitoring mechanisms are strongly encouraged to use these references. However, texts emanating or prepared under instructions from the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, independent monitoring mechanisms, as well as reports, declarations and other texts attributed to individual Parliamentarians, representatives to the Congress, judges of the Court or members of independent monitoring mechanisms will not have to be changed if they are not in line with the agreed references. As regards the country Country: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The inverted commas are an integral pan of the reference. When the term appears within a sentence, the the must be written with a small t Adjective/ Nationality: of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Examples: the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the police of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia citizen of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Adjective referring to culture: Macedonian (Slav) Examples: Macedonian (Slav) traditions. Macedonian (Slav) culture Language: Macedonian (Slav) As regards persons belonging to a minority or speaking a minority language outside the country Persons/group: Macedonian(s) accompanied by a footnote reading Terminology of self-identification used by the person(s) concerned Adjective: Macedonian (Slav) Examples: Macedonian (Slav) traditions. Macedonian (Slav) associations, Macedonian (Slav) schools Language: Macedonian (Slav) Jan Kleijssen Director of the Secretary General's Private Office -Original Message- From: Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-project@lists.debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:44:26 +0200 Subject: Re: Two Macedonias 2) use the names 'Republic Macedonia' and 'Greek Macedonia'. I like that one, but, as Steve Langasek said, in the namespace of autonomous territories, there is no collision at all. Well, in my opinion, if we decide changing FYROM to something in iso-codes (and thus, as a direct consequence, in debian-installer), we should use Macedonia. And, well, I'm pretty sure that most Greek users indeed share this advice. I'm already sure of this for one of them..:) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two Macedonias
Since, my comments displeased some people who were brave enough to accuse me of 'selling my country', I hereby denounce all 'authority' with regards to such matters. Feel free to decide whatever you like, I prefer to spend my time in some actually useful area, for example, complete the greek support in the installer, rather than commence in such arguments. Konstantinos
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? See here: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=apt-proxy ~ - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ ~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBUt+Bn7DbMsAkQLgRAj5jAKCjvCIHfFplmZp5vzlwY7TnfAeMHwCgpRdX LPd1iuoz0FuEnYbqzPcCYLk= =oGMF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Two Macedonias
Vassilis Grigoriadi writes: I'm sorry to say so, but if Debian does not comply to the resolution of the foreign ministers of the EU than i will be in the unpleasent position to bring the subject to the EU court. And quotes: ...the Secretariat is hereby instructed... Debian is not part of the Secretariat. This resolution has nothing to do with us. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
--- Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A wildly interesting discussion is taking place at debian-project currently, with the subject How to solve problem X least secretly. Come on everybody and show the world that you care about when our secret mailinglist is appropriate. I personally love the secret discussions about secret discussions. Even more so, I love non-secret discussions about secret discussions about secret discussions. This has now been beaten by the above secret post to the secret list about the non-secret discussion about the secret discussion about secret discussion. debian-private, you have made my day. - David Let's All Get Meta! Nusinow __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: non-secret discussion on debian-project!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 19:30, Richard A. Hecker wrote: | On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:53:39PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: | |Thank you for not abusing our secret mailinglist for irrelevant stuff |like pointing fingers at (cute?) attempts to follow our Social Contract. | |Feel free to quote my parts of this email in public! | |I see nothing secret in any of this email, and thus encourage responses |to be targeted debian-project instead of this secret list. | | | Obviously, debian-private contains many messages that have no secret | content. This message was another example of this fact. I unlocked it from its default secret status. | It is wrong for a person to equate d-private == secret_content. Somewhat true. The problem is that emails not explicitly declared differently must be kept secret. We are lazy so we do not subscribe to additional lists but rely on debian-private where we got subscribed by default. We are lazy and just want to get hold of the developers so we use debian-private. We are lazy and do not declare each and every time content posted to debian-private is allowed quoted elsewere. What I see is a practical situation of laziness. I also see a practical solution: ~ * Subscribe all developers by default to debian-project. ~ * For each mail posted to debian-private require a one-line explanation of why it should be treated as a secret (and if only for a while then what would trigger release of the secrecy-lock). The one-line explanation is similar to the current use of urgency=high for packages: A short explanation is required, to show that you didn't set the flag by accident or without reflecting. | If a concensus developed about the rules, I think we would | see less bickering on d-private. I doubt if we could eliminate it all, | because flamage was created in our geek community ;-) I am _not_ talking about noise. Flamage or not, we should not keep things secret unless really really necessary. I am trying to avoid unnecessary secrets. Please do not mix that with avoiding noise! ~ - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ ~ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBU3CNn7DbMsAkQLgRAvI4AJ0VIQfCl0MzgbVpnH+FrDWUDFdmqACeICin /wluCBvI+2eoSab2tmqDriY= =4d1l -END PGP SIGNATURE-
