Re: Yet another list statistics for debian-project
[I am *so* not subscribed. Cc me if you particularly want me to read what you have to say. Do not expect a reply.] There are 5 people listed in the -legal top 10 who are not DDs now and of those: Andrew Suffield stopped posting when he was still a DD IIRC Basically when I quit. I spent about six months quitting - yeah, bloody slow, for the same reason I did quit. Leaving Debian neatly takes a remarkable amount of work. This is also distorted by my habit when I was younger of writing many short (1-2 sentence) mails in one thread, to make it easier for people with threading MUAs to follow the discussion. Later on I lost enthusiasm for making the effort (people grumble anyway, so you might as well not expend the time), and tended to batch up my comments into larger mails, which may explain the apparent downwards curve. And still apparently sent less than one mail per day. Go figure. Sure felt like more. If anyone cares to make a more detailed analysis, it would probably be more interesting to look at the total number of bytes sent per poster (before and after stripping inline patches and mime attachments). Unfortunately it still wouldn't tell you whether the authors were obsessive, highly-committed geniuses, or just plain stupid. Measuring the wrong thing. Try comparing lines of code still in the archive to lines of list postings, although that would be a real bitch to compute. [Yeah, not dead yet. So there.] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Retiring, and revoking gpg key
[def-ref says to send this to -private, but I think that's just dumb. Nothing about this message is private] I orphaned the last of my packages a few weeks ago; now I'm retiring from the project properly. I'm also taking this opportunity to replace my gpg key. 14ad797f is now five years old, and it's only 1024-bit DSA. I was going to keep it for a few more years, but this is a convinient opportunity. Revocation certificate for 14ad797f: -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: A revocation certificate should follow iHEEIBECADEFAkQZYaYqHQFUaGlzIGtleSBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdXBlcnNlZGVkIGJ5 IDk4QUNDMTBBAAoJEJaSvfEUrXl/1qkAn3HMo/7zhHeLVl9ihpei9oofxUzvAJ9R mGnctHewiNDNLLJcJj4PC5OJ4A== =0XsO -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- My new key is: pub 2048R/98ACC10A 2006-03-16 Key fingerprint = 3277 4EA5 FAC9 C75B 8D66 D6CE 890F 8286 98AC C10A uid Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] And is attached for convinience. [I'm not subscribed to this list] bin5dUThOfMl2.bin Description: PGP Key 0x98ACC10A. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:05:27PM +0100, Adeodato Sim? wrote: Ai, any chance of getting a copy of msgid.php et al. so that somebody can run it elsewhere? Here. It still needs some work - the php frontend does not handle duplicate msgids (which exist) because writing php makes me want to vomit, and update-index is too slow. The biggest problem is that it's looking in every 'month' directory (like debian-devel/2005/debian-devel-200510) instead of just the current one, so it stats thousands of files every time, which makes DSA bitch about disk IO time and cache consumed on master. It can't run anywhere else, it needs a copy of the *actual* HTML archives - the process used to generate them (and therefore the URLs to the mails) is non-deterministic, so you have to process the results, and they aren't mirrored anywhere. Solving this isn't hugely difficult but it is subtle: you have to record the last month you looked at, so that you can check no new mails have been added since then. Originally I had it running every 5 minutes, but I reduced it to every 30 to get neuro off my back - it takes about 20 to 30 seconds for each sweep of the lists, at those intervals, most of which is spent waiting for the kernel to come back from stat() calls (because master's disks are usually busy). It would make sense to run rapid sweeps over -devel and other high-traffic lists, and less frequent ones over the rest, but I never got around to that either. There's a subtle correctness issue in that it fails to notice when listmasters delete spam from the archives, and in doing so change all the URLs to mails after that point. I'm not sure what to do about that; the root problem is that what the listmasters are doing is crazy. Oh, and it's fucking ugly. I meant to rewrite it ages ago. I threw the thing together in an hour or two. Conceptually it's simple but subtle. Except for the php bit, which is a blunt instrument in homage to the fact that master supports php but not perl. (Initially building the index database takes something like 10 hours, running at nice +20, and that's got to be on master too. I seem to have accidentally killed off all my copies of it, thought I still had one, oh well) -- Andrew Suffield mindx.tar.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, obviously mutt sucks, why did it put a comma there? Unencoded non-ASCII characters are invalid in mail headers though. -- Andrew Suffield signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Reducing my involvement in Debian
It's due to some recent and inconveniently timed personal events rather than *anything* within Debian, but I'm going to be reducing my involvement considerably. I'm sure people who have no insight into my life will claim otherwise; they're full of shit, if you care. If you don't already know my reasons for this, and you most likely don't, you probably aren't going to. I'm ditching the packages I don't personally use. My handful of unfinished projects will probably remain that way. Most of the stuff I've been hosting in ~/public_html/ directories is gone, and the rest will probably go soon. I will not be on IRC or subscribed to most of the lists I currently read. Don't look to me for help with random things any more. From now on, I shall only be doing things which are technically advantageous to me. As a parting shot, here are some things which Debian needs more people to understand: Watch out for the people claiming to have some insight into my motivations here, or saying what a great improvement this is - that ad-hominem attitude is precisely the thing which has caused so much trouble in Debian over the years. Most of the significant non-technical issues that I've ever seen can be traced back to that. Once you start focusing on the person who says something, rather than what they're saying, technical superiority ceases to be a result. Once you start measuring people, you find that they don't measure up. Also watch out for people talking about the 'intent' of others - this is little more than thought-crime, and they have apparently become telepathic. And the Debian version of 'terrorism' is 'anti-social' - a crime that brooks no defence or tolerance, can be defined to encompass anything you wish, and justifies any action in response[0]. I'm not going to bother about the people trying to sabotage Debian's structure (mostly with 'good intentions', and you all know where that road leads) any more - if you lot want to reign them in, and I know a lot of you do, then you're going to have to do it on your own. It will probably be a few years before they can significantly affect me now, and when that happens I can always leave. All you people who aren't Ubuntu-loving, Nazi-hating, beer-drinking members of the correct religion and political party, you're going to have to do without my support in future. If you want to do something about it, you're going to have to *do* something, instead of just sitting around and complaining. In Debian, nobody listens to complaints from a minority - they'll make 'reasonable' arguments about prioritisation and majority rule, but ultimately it means you're going to be ignored, whatever their reasoning. So merely complaining is a waste of your time. Do something about the problem instead. But before you do it - consider: what would winning look like? Then figure out how to get there. Not how you'd like to get there, but how you *can* get there. You'll probably have to work around people rather than through them (you will almost always encounter people who refuse to work *with* you, for whatever reason). None of these things are currently at a scale where they pose an immediate threat to Debian. All of them are growing. All of them *will* be ultimately fatal if permitted to grow unchecked. Keep this in mind: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. And wonder who they're going to be coming for next time. Remember, being unpopular is a crime. That is the law of a pure democracy[1]. That is part of why most governments are far from democratic - it's incompatible with the justice system, for one thing. Maybe Debian could learn a few lessons from them. [0] Including assuming dictatorial power: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html The definition of 'dictatorial' given here is worth noting, even if you don't read the rest of it. quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [1] Cory Doctorow wrote a story about this, exploring the idea of what such a world would look like. If you haven't already read it, you should - and then think about whether you'd like to live in that world. http://www.craphound.com/down/download.php -- ...now lost without the thing I held so dear, I have become what I fear. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian etch
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:27:47PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Getting off-topic, excuse me but let me follow-up Andrew.
I don't think this thread has *ever* been on-topic :P
But hey, we may as well wring some modicum of interesting discussion
from it.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:37:38AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Curious. But I've since found a paper which observes that, for no
apparent reason, the 'ch' sound in English tends to map onto an -i
ending rather than the -u which most of the other 'sharp' consonants
tend to get... interesting oddity.
Indeed. I just thought about the rationale behind why I use i to
supplement a missing vowel for this case. (Japanese has to end with the
vowel in writing (except n) although their sounds are very faint).
Japanese used to use i instead of u for missing vowels in early 20th
century and we still have some imported words containing i at the
end.[*] But this is not the case for this ch case, I think.
50 basic sounds of Japanese are spelled as
{(null),k,s,t,n,h,m,y,r,w}*{a,i,u,e,o}
[Except that there is not and has never been a yi, ye, or wu, and some
of the others are now obsolete, for those of you following along at home]
in Educational ministry spelling system which follows logic of Japanese
perception of sound groups and taught in Japanese school system. There
is an alternative spelling system called Hebon-system which is based on
transcribed sound of Japanese by the English speaker and promoted by
Foreign ministry for use in Japanese passport etc.
Although the literal translation is 'Hebon', most English speakers
would know it better as 'Hepburn' (after the guy who invented it).
t endings are usually supplemented by o because there is no tu nor
ti sounds within normal Japanese text.
Also, within this basic 50 sound table, ch appears only as chi.
I hope you find the rationale behind association of ch to chi in the
above facts.
Yeah, that was my guess too... but I'm no linguist, and I don't know
much about the history of the language. This thing about historically
using -i instead of -u is new to me, and makes me somewhat less sure
of the reason. Unfortunately I don't know any linguists who study
Japanese.
Oh, as for mangled text above with ? which should have been escape code
or something, I think this is encoding issue. I sent my main with most
common 7 bit encoding:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yeah, I can read it in 2022-jp, but I'm not set up to write in it
(some locale problem, I think) and for some unknown reason mutt and
emacs both refused to transcode it into utf-8 when replying. I haven't
been able to puzzle out which of them is broken.
[*] Japanese used to supplement -i instead of -u in early 20th century
per my non-specialist understanding. This can be observed with
following example of 2 imported words from a single original English
word.
strike - sutoraiku (Baseball usage)
strike - sutoraiki (Labor union usage)
Wow, how weird. Here edict really shows its inadequecy - it claims
they're the same word. I wonder if there's a reference dictionary for
these that doesn't suck...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian etch
[Alas, mutt and emacs have conspired to mangle the japanese in the quoting - it was fine when I was reading it] On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 03:31:40AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: While it would be strictly legal to use 'ecchi' as the pronunciation, there are better choices, and nobody is going to be doing that unless they're just being an arsehole - in which case you aren't going to stop them. Wow, I am one. But I think most other Japanese do the same as me. Curious. But I've since found a paper which observes that, for no apparent reason, the 'ch' sound in English tends to map onto an -i ending rather than the -u which most of the other 'sharp' consonants tend to get... interesting oddity. I don't think there's really anything to see here. If we'd called it et'chy (English doesn't have geminated stops - that's a pause in there, like a glottal stop) then there might be, but we didn't. As we know etch came from etch a sketch. The word sketch is commonly used imported English word in Japanese. sketch = ?$B%9%1%C%A ; ?$B%1=ke etch = ?$B%(%C%A ; ?$B%(=e So we put glottal indicator ?$B%C with reason :-) [Technically, when you use a sokuon as a consonant prefix, it's a geminate indicator; it's only a glottal when it comes at the *end* of a sentence or phrase. I'm sure that means something really important to the linguists]. As I see on the web, the toy Etch-a-Sketch was translated as ?$B%(%C%A%%9%1%C%A by others. So this seems quite normal translation. Interesting. I guess that means there's no real issue here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian etch
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:23:21PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Thomas Hoehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In case no japanese Debian user has told you yet - just to give you a hint: the word etch (written as H) in Japanese means indecent, lewd or just pornographic. Maybe you should rename this release or at least the japanese version... Why not just translate the word etch? It's very difficult to pick a name that /doesn't/ mean something bad in at least one language around the world, so perhaps it's better if folks simply put the name in its correct context: that of a Toy Story character. As a native English speaker, there is nothing I find more offensive and annoying than when I'm watching something that's been translated from Japanese and all the names have been replaced with English ones - it's patronising. I don't see why it would be any different the other way around. If a word has no translation then leave it alone, don't make one up just because it sounds odd. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian etch
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:29:45PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, Roger Leigh wrote: Thomas Hoehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In case no japanese Debian user has told you yet - just to give you a hint: the word etch (written as H) in Japanese means indecent, lewd or just pornographic. Maybe you should rename this release or at least the japanese version... Why not just translate the word etch? It's very difficult to pick a name that /doesn't/ mean something bad in at least one language around the world, so perhaps it's better if folks simply put the name in its correct context: that of a Toy Story character. Considering the fact that we had no problems with a release codenamed woody, I think some incidental indecency is not something to worry about. Given that Branden can get penis jokes out of 'potato', I don't think it really matters what we call it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian etch
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:02:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: lewd or just pornographic. Maybe you should rename this release or at least the japanese version... That's the edict translation. The problem with edict is that it's crap, and kinda outdated in places. Imagine a random mixture of wordnet and web1913, that would be similar. If it's coming from a girl who's screaming and throwing stuff at you, it might be a reasonable translation; in general, no. The correct translation of 'etchi' is roughly 'of or relating to sex', neither more nor less. As a noun it refers to the act itself. As a description of a person it's roughly 'promiscuous'. It is childish but otherwise neutral in tone; any positive or negative implications must be picked up from context. I believe this is normally spelled ecchi when written in English (although I see that etchi is an alternative spelling). 'etchi' is the correct Hepburn transliteration. 'etti' is the correct kunrei form. 'ecchi' is western anime fanboys, it's not Japanese at all. Anyway, it's a different word. 'etch' is not a valid word in Japanese; they don't have the right sounds for it in their language. While it would be strictly legal to use 'ecchi' as the pronunciation, there are better choices, and nobody is going to be doing that unless they're just being an arsehole - in which case you aren't going to stop them. I don't think there's really anything to see here. If we'd called it et'chy (English doesn't have geminated stops - that's a pause in there, like a glottal stop) then there might be, but we didn't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:29:26AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to=20 Debian. Let them compare on their own channel. The above might variously be described as not entirely accurate, wrong or even completely untrue. Other possible descriptions include lemon sorbet, and exuberence. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday 10 December 2005 05:45 am, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.12.10.1358 +0100]: So they can go join #ubuntu. Honestly, not that hard. Type it with me now: /join #ubuntu Why should a Debian-Ubuntu comparison be any more on-topic on #ubuntu than it is on #debian? Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to Debian. Let them compare on their own channel. This says you are wrong: http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one, I'd be contributing to Fedora? Cool! That'll bolster my CV a bit. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: This says you are wrong: http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one, I'd be contributing to Fedora? Cool! That'll bolster my CV a bit. If Fedora were using the same packaging system so that the packaging diffs were meaningful, ubuntu doesn't do that, they use cdbs and shit. you separated out the diffs for the upstream source and the diffs for packaging, Trivial. Two or three diffs and a couple of interdiffs. and you continued doing this on a regular basis cron. yes, you would indeed be contributing to Fedora. Neat. Almost worth the 20 minutes it would take to implement. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status update from Create Commons workgroup?
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: What is the current status of the work going on to try to make some of the Creative Commons licenses acceptable according to the Debian free software guidelines? I know there were a workgroup being formed in March, and I hope they are doing good work. I spoke with Lawrence Lessig yesterday, asking him for updates and if he believed it would be possible to get the licenses acceptable by Debian. He said he had not heard news on the topic for half a year, and that he was waiting for feedback from Debian. He said that the suggested changes had been accepted except two suggestions, which he claimed did not have the effect intended. So, what is the experience on Debians part? Are we getting closer to a solution? I thought that had been sent back to them some time ago... we've seen a draft that's probably okay except for a few details that are kinda uncertain and some wording that's just plain weird. I don't see any reason why it won't get fixed and turn into the basis for the next versions of the CC licenses, but AFAIK we're waiting on CC right now. That's Evan's problem though, go ask him. I just read licenses. If we knew which of the two suggestions did not have the effect intended (and why), we could come up with plenty of alternate suggestions. Bad explanation on our side, or misunderstanding on theirs. I believe these have all been cleared up now. In addition, a few of our suggestions were of the this is way too confusing to read variety rather than the this is non-free variety, and if they didn't take those, that's just fine. Actually they took most (all?) of those. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
lists.debian.org Message-ID lookup
I got tired of trying to find mails from Message-IDs, which has become the conventional way to reference them, so I threw this together: http://lists.debian.org/~asuffield/msgid.php/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Does what it looks like. Stick the Message-ID on the end, it redirects to the relevant entry in the list archives. The index is updated roughly every five minutes and covers the entire public archive on lists.debian.org. Lists which don't have public archives aren't indexed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:40:23PM +0100, Rich Walker wrote: In the UK, VAT registration is *required* if you are in business[1] and your 12-month *turnover* exceeds £6. Probably this is not an issue for this organisation at present. VAT registration isn't the one you need to worry about. Debian-UK isn't going to be shifting that much money in a hurry. Corporation Tax is the one to worry about. The limit for that is only £10,000 per financial year. I just ran a few quick projections based on the reports in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives, and it's reasonably likely that it'll be over that limit next year, given the current rate of growth in sales. It might be over this year, that's hard to predict. Corporation Tax also applies to members associations, clubs and societies at the same rate as for registered companies. Basically any group of two or more people that handles money and isn't a charity is going to have to pay Corporation Tax; HMRC's definition of company is anything that owes us money and isn't an individual citizen. Corporation Tax requires annual tax returns and notification that the company exists, and HMRC is going to come along and audit anything as weird as Debian-UK fairly quickly, so the accounts had better be in order, backdated six years. Failure to file the tax returns in a timely manner results in a fine of £100/£200 plus 10%/20% of the unpaid tax, depending on how untimely you are. Failure to have your accounts in order when they audit results in HMRC conducting an autopsy of the company. It may also require a tax return to be filed for years when the association is below the limit. I'm not sure about that. If it does, the same penalties apply. Ask a chartered accountant. And those penalties can probably be applied against any members, since it's not incorporated with limits on liability. Bugger. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK (was Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks)
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Mark, you keep on mentioning this. Precisely what personal details do you think D-UK holds about you, either correct or incorrect? I'm pretty sure that's it right there. And getting people's names wrong when replying to email is really quite pitiful... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to collectively killfile you. So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to you. I think that's pretty sickening really. You'll probably get exactly what you want. On d-private you continue to claim that your original post was misunderstood but haven't revealed your true meaning in a way that anyone else can understand. Empirically false, lots of people understood. They just didn't feel the need to talk about it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Andrew Suffield] On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to collectively killfile you. So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to you. I think that's pretty sickening really. You'll probably get exactly what you want. No, that is not what he is saying. I am sure you understand it too. He said that each individual reader can choose to ignore your postings, and there is nothing anyone else can do to force people to read messages they do not care to read. That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations and advocating that other people do something based on those accusations. In the real world, this is a tort, specifically defamation of character. And benefit of the doubt does apply in the manner I have indicated, even though it's not normally a criminal offense, in order to prevent *exactly* the situation we're seeing here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Apparent_reversal_of_benefit_of_the_doubt -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 01:23:20AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote: I'm not sure the issue of the accusations is the useful issue to resolve. I'm not going to debate the particulars of whether or not accusations have been made or might or might not be valid, because I *really* don't think that's the question at issue, strangely. What I'm objecting to, and fighting, is a culture which is even willing to consider a presumption of guilt and a vigilante mob. That's the really important thing here. If that becomes 'acceptable', Debian is in serious trouble. The debate about the impact and appropriateness of differing conversational styles is not a new one, nor has anything new been brought to it this week. It's only peripherally related, by subject matter. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric, What are the flaws? The flaw is that of projection: assuming that silence means everyone agrees with you. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means, here. Are you saying that this principle does not hold? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please stop the Andrew Suffield spam
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:25:52PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote: On Aug 13 0:02+0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote: For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield? Until people stop making accusations. I didn't see any accusations in that email. I didn't say there were any. I'm guessing that the reason there aren't more people telling you they disagree is because you have convinced them (or nearly) to join the cause. Anyone who isn't ignoring you right now is probably really frustrated with you, and strongly considering the killfile option. The alternative explanation is that I'm right, and they don't have any evidence. Have you even bothered to consider that? Maybe you should try to resolve this individually with those you have taken offense to. This has not nothing to do with me taking offense; if that were the case, I'd have done it *years* ago. This is entirely about mob rule and presumption of innocence. What is the ultimate purpose of this discussion? I think they made their purpose quite clear. I seem to recall that you started this discussion. What are you talking about? This 'discussion' was started by Benjamin Mako Hill and the people who signed his 'pledge'. I was forced to respond, and as I noted in my first mail on the subject, I had not wanted to ever have to fight this battle. I've been letting people tell stories about me for ages without intervening. I'll agree that the pledge to killfile you doesn't seem like the best solution, but the thread has hurt you more than helped. I really *don't care* what effect it has on me. The point is to show how very bad their actions are, so that people don't ever do something like this again. Debian does not need a culture of witchhunts. It seems to be working. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:32:16PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: You're a smart guy Andrew (definitely smarter than me) Now half a dozen people are going to claim I have a superiority complex, because of something that I didn't even say (wouldn't be the first time). I didn't mean to imply anything about a superiority complex. I was simply being honest. I know, isn't it insidious? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:13:21PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense did it encourage more discussion - it was quite clearly a statement that he was being ignored because he was just trying to start an argument. I suppose you could claim it was a 'put-down', but I claim it is a factually accurate description of the parent mail and I challenge anybody to prove otherwise. This is an example of one of the significant limitations (perhaps good, perhaps not) in Debian's current culture: A lot of people think rudeness is excused -- and not just excusable -- when it saves them future effort. Then I don't think you've got any grounds to accuse me of it specifically, and not any of the others. Regardless of whether or not it happens to be my belief (it isn't). How else should I consider a mail that simply declares Troll.? Do you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment? Anything more verbose would merely be feeding the troll. The parent mail is not clearly a troll to me, and I think it is preposterous to assume something is a troll until proven otherwise. The parent mail is an instance of argumentum ad hominem and a claim to authority, combined with a straw man, on a subject which is tangential to the one under discussion, which is written in a clearly antagonistic manner and adds no new information or valid arguments. If that's not a troll, then what is? When you held yourself up as knowing the security mechanisms used by every CA, it was entirely appropriate to puncture that impression. Oh come now, the social attacks against security in large organisations are common knowledge, at least to anybody who reads CRYPTO-GRAM or similar publications. That's hardly a claim to authority. And why are you attacking me instead? I am attacking you because you asked me to explain my selection of posts to illustrate when you send things that are little more than provocations, put-downs and trolls. If you did not want me to elaborate on why your posts qualify, you should not have asked. Those posts were in response to the attacks[0], and came after them. So you don't have a reason, or at least not one you're willing to state. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00166.html I can see nothing in this mail that could be even remotely like that. Explain your claim. It was counterproductive in that it did not advance any discussion. Interesting definition. I have not encoutered this one before. It is an example of counterproductive, not a definition. Inflammatory remarks which do not also illuminate are little more than provocations, put-downs and trolls, and such remarks are only one way to be counterproductive in one's discourse. I assumed that their counterproductive nature was why you chose that description when asking people to find objectionable posts of yours. I did not choose that description. I challenged other people who were using it. Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus. This statement appears disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; if it was meant to be a point, please restate it. It was an elaboration of why the complaint about consensus-building was hypocritical: because the post itself worked against consensus. So your claim is that you can never object to people for working against consensus because doing so would be working against consensus. Well, that appears to deny you from being allowed to make that point, so I think your argument is self-defeating. [0] http://www.pledgebank.com/killfileandrew -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:40:52PM +0300, Horst Lederhosen wrote: There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly. I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest. Unfortunalty many people have this thing they call feelings, which makes them adjust their opinions on you according to how friendly or rude you are to them. I don't really care about their opinions of me. Or are you prepared to argue that MJ Ray's description is correct, and that I don't like them is sufficient reason to get a mob together and attack somebody? I did not ask for preaching about how I could make people like me; it's really quite irrelevant. I challenged those doing the attacking to justify their claims. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:43:16AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Your approach seemed much more likely to annoy and mislead people than to help identify where they agree or disagree. I disagree, and you have done nothing to show otherwise. But I give up. That says it all really. I've rebutted every one of your claims and you gave up. Anybody else think they can prove their accusations? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present evidence. So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I explained every case. I think that says a lot for the accuracy of the accusations. Fascinating how many people are willing to accuse where they won't be challenged, but when called onto the carpet to defend their claims, they become silent. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present evidence. So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I explained every case. I think that says a lot for the accuracy of the accusations. It says a lot more about how much you regularly misrepresent plain writing to put your spin on issues. You think you rebutted my arguments; I think you actually illustrated that I was correct from the start. The real reason I gave up is that it is clear that neither of us is convincing the other. This is not a game, and it's not a debate; I do not have to convince you. Back up your accusations or abandon them. If you don't back them up, innocent until proven guilty says they aren't valid. Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric, it is also telling that nobody else has stepped up to argue that your posts were acceptable. I have asked people not to do that (at least, I think I've asked people; if I missed anybody: please don't). I shall not permit this to be reduced to a popularity contest or a vote. These are issues of fact, not opinion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please stop the Andrew Suffield spam
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote: For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield? Until people stop making accusations. What is the ultimate purpose of this discussion? I think they made their purpose quite clear. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:09:35PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Did you not read my original mail? I thought it quite clear. I'll repeat the relevant paragraph here: Thanks for providing a nice example to the discussion. I asked for more information, and you just quoted your previous message, adding none. You asked for specific information which I had already provided. I predict that you will continue to ignore my point by claiming that I haven't provided any further information, while never asking any specific questions. You claim your point is not being addressed, yet you don't do anything to help people addressing it. I have done all that I can. In the meantime, you indulge in a personal attack. Oh look, another claim of some nebulous 'personal attack' without any evidence. I invite people to read my previous mail (it's not long) and see for themselves. If I used your words, I'd add that your mail is a needlessly stupid thing, and a good example of why things are the way they are[1]. [1] Randomly taken from messages of yours in debian-devel. Without citations or context, of course. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:42:37PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how responses look to oneself but how they look to other people. There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly. I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been putting around this notion that I generally write flames, trolls, put-downs, whatever you want to call it. snip I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp mails. Rather than spending your time dismissing this situation as some cabal-like conspiracy by a small group of people, maybe you should take a really long, hard look at your behavior and ask yourself Why me? I know exactly why and I explained (partially) near the top of that mail. There are people who spend significant amounts of their time trashing me (don't try to tell me they don't; I've seen it on occasion and heard about it happening a lot more where I can't see it, from several people I trust). I do not, normally, do anything about it. Nor am I interested in making people in Debian like me, which is why I don't normally do anything about it. You're a smart guy Andrew (definitely smarter than me) Now half a dozen people are going to claim I have a superiority complex, because of something that I didn't even say (wouldn't be the first time). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
running around advocating knowingly putting non-free stuff into main, which is a serious charge. I am hardly the first person to observe this. I can't remember who coined the term anti-freedom advocate but it wasn't me. And thinking that it's an insult to say there exist people whose goals are opposed to your own is a rather prejudiced attitude. I certainly hold no such opinion of people who disagree with me, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this notion is the norm. Another implied insult is the distinction between the frequent posters to debian-legal: You are there because you send lots of short email, and others who are there are in your killfile. The only reason I see to mention that is to sugggest that they are not worth counting. The only way I can see that you could possibly have got this idea is if you were deliberately twisting my words to look as bad as you could. It is completely and utterly backwards. And I don't know what this worth counting stuff is about. The parent poster was asking if the four top-10 posters to debian-legal that aren't developers were professional trouble-makers (and yet oddly I don't see you throwing accusations at him). I responded by indicating that the list was confusing, since it doesn't accurately represent the amount of time being spent on -legal (or whatever activity metric you prefer), and that I expected there to be others appearing excessively high for the same reasons as me. But then I noted that I killfiled a couple of them, indicating that maybe some of them are professional trouble-makers. Since obviously I'd deliberately avoided saying who, the implication is that the reader should make up their own mind. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:07:54AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at the things which actually happened? That's sage advice. However, mako stated: If you read the Debian private email list, you understand my immediate motivation for starting this pledge. Well, we non-devs can't read -private, so the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back isn't actually accessible for us to look at. If you're serious, either repost the messages he's referring to someplace public, or give permission for public disclosure so that those who took offense can do it for you. I can't. It's not my subject and there is nothing I wrote that I could repost without revealing it. That's part of what makes this so difficult: my opponents are willing to break privacy on the parts that suit their purposes, but I'm not. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:00:19PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: In my oppinion that is because most people try to fit in, cooperate and get along on their own or at least listen to their peers when they are asked to do so. Well then maybe you should try doing that, instead of attacking those you don't agree with. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:23:00AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Andrew Suffield] I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp mails. It's hardly uncommon in Debian; I suspect we would reduce the conflict level and increase productivity if there were less such messages. Replying with strong language to a message with strong language tend to just escalate the conflict, and in my experience rarely end in a constructive way. In my experience, it is sometimes necessary to get somebody's attention, and it does sometimes work. The trick is one of judgement. I stand by mine and challenge anybody to show it to be significantly worse than the norm. I find it significant that so far, nobody has even tried to do so. Removed your name from the subject. I believe it is a bad idea to have names in subjects, as the name linger on while the topic being discussed tend to drift far away from the original topic. That's part of why I hate having to do this. It wasn't my idea. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:26:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes very little of any direct benefit to the project, but has a talent for stimulating pointless argument. I find it entertaining that in a thread started for the express and explicit purpose of challenging this libel, people are still engaging in it without even attempting to justify it. Damn, it's a pity I'm not a litigious type. I could make millions if I sued for this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile a person
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: In my experience, it is sometimes necessary to get somebody's attention, and it does sometimes work. The trick is one of judgement. I stand by mine and challenge anybody to show it to be significantly worse than the norm. You cheat: nothing can be significantly worse than your definition of norm, therefore anything you do will always be justified. More unsubstantiated libel. It's telling how the people accusing me are the ones doing all the flaming. I find it significant that so far, nobody has even tried to do so. You claim that people aren't addressing your point in this thread. Would you like to clarify better what you are interested in? Did you not read my original mail? I thought it quite clear. I'll repeat the relevant paragraph here: My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails; this should be easy, if it were true. Find mails from me that are little more than provocations, put-downs, and trolls. Not ones where people have interpreted it that way and I've either told them they're wrong or ignored them. Ones where it's actually true. Post references to this thread. See how many you *actually* get, out of the number of mails I send. And here's a link to the mail I pasted it from, in case you can't find your way up the thread view in your MUA: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/08/msg00074.html -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
sigh I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far. There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been putting around this notion that I generally write flames, trolls, put-downs, whatever you want to call it. As a rule I ignore them, because I don't consider such behaviour deserving of a response. Since they're going unchallenged, there's an unfortunate tendency for people to believe them and repeat the stories. By and large, I find that the Debian project is good at rising above this stuff, but when you get a mob of people together they can behave quite irrationally. So for what I believe is the first time ever in public, I'm forced to respond. My response isn't going to be to blame these people; I just included those paragraphs for background information. My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails; this should be easy, if it were true. Find mails from me that are little more than provocations, put-downs, and trolls. Not ones where people have interpreted it that way and I've either told them they're wrong or ignored them. Ones where it's actually true. Post references to this thread. See how many you *actually* get, out of the number of mails I send. I'll give you some numbers to start with - here is a rough count (not including Ccs) of the mails I've sent to Debian lists this year: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/Mail$ grep -c ^To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent-2005* sent-200501:78 sent-200502:42 sent-200503:86 sent-200504:48 sent-200505:34 sent-200506:54 sent-200507:23 sent-200508:39 I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp mails. It's hardly uncommon in Debian; I've made a quick review of my sent mail in the past few months, and the mail I've seen on the lists in that time frame, and I don't think my percentage is any worse than anybody else (and it's better than many). Neither is the number of large threads I've spawned (I found two, and I went back two years). The only difference is that other people don't have rumours being spread about them. I'm not going to try and take action against the ones truly responsible for this. Nor will I support anybody else who thinks they should; the best response to such people is to ignore them. And I can't stop you from making a knee-jerk response. All I'm going to say is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at the things which actually happened? On the other hand, if you think that what Debian needs is vigilante rule where people are not offered a chance to defend themselves, and accusations are taken as proof, go ahead; you'll get exactly what you created. Make sure it's what you wanted. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:38:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if this organization is called Debian Core Consortium, it *is* referring to Debian itself, isn't it? That's my understanding. It's not claiming to be debian or trying to use the name for anything other than the produce of debian. It's a consortium trying to help the core of debian. Seems like basic, accurate, descriptive use so far. Maybe some of the later uses for its output could get a bit tricky, though. That's probably the important case anyway. I'm not really bothered by an organisation calling itself the 'Debian Core Consortium'. I am bothered by somebody producing something that is called Debian, or anything sufficiently confusingly similar that I get mail from dumb lusers who are trying to insist that I should be able to solve their problems with Linspire. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Core Consortium
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: That's probably the important case anyway. I'm not really bothered by an organisation calling itself the 'Debian Core Consortium'. I am bothered by somebody producing something that is called Debian, or anything sufficiently confusingly similar that I get mail from dumb lusers who are trying to insist that I should be able to solve their problems with Linspire. *Yuck!* Did you have to use the L word!? I get more stupid mail (and IRC questions) from Linspire lusers than from all other derivatives put together. So, yeah :P -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:46:34AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: You missed: I received an interview request from Andy Channelle of the UK publication Linux Format, but unfortunately was unable to get my response to him because he's `blocking my mail`_. A freelancer for the `Gartner Group`_ also contacted me with a very long message, to which I'm not sure how to reply yet. .. _blocking my mail: http://deadbeast.net/~branden/homepage/mailblock.html How does that constitute as whining? He's publically whining about the fact these people are BLOCKING HIS MAIL when in fact it may just be the circumstances of their workplace/ISP/whatever that they are unable to change. Yet it's their names he's publically trying to blacken. Branden, being a technical person who is well aware of the problems of a DUL'd IP, could take the more mature approach and ask his ISP for an IP which isn't on the DUL or get his ISP to remove the range from the DUL. These aren't difficult to at least ask for but he'd rather whine on and on about these people who are BLOCKING HIS MAIL instead of taking a mature approach to it. Why is my point of view hard to understand? Because you're clearly on drugs. Remove the stick from your butthole and stop bitching at great length about a few offhanded comments observing that some people have made themselves difficult to communicate with. I bet you really *hate* the BTS, that's festering pit of 30 'whines'. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Marino Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I support Branden's general approach, but think it would be better to include some more active announcement. I think it's unreasonable to demand post-holders work to accommodate daft mailserver configurations. I have no objection to Branden *as Branden* refusing to deal with users who drop mail. However, I think Branden as DPL ought to deal with reality rather than trying to fix everything that's broken with the world. I don't see him trying to fix anything. Rather, I see him not wasting time on trying to fix brainlessly broken crap but instead just ignoring it and carrying on. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:34:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Really, what does our user care about the author's original intent over and above our intent in supplying the manual? If they wanted the original, why are they downloading a derived work? One could argue that an attribution should include a way to locate the previous version and I doubt many would disagree. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that it would be OK to require that changed sections aren't attributed to the original author. It's certainly 'okay' if for no other reason than because it's a no-op. Deliberate misattribution is illegal everywhere that I'm aware of, although the details of implementation vary (for example, in the US, it's written into the copyright statute). Thusly writing such clauses into licenses should be discouraged, as they just generate confusion to no real effect; it wasn't legal to misattribute works to start with, and it has not somehow become *more* illegal by adding noise to a license. Certainly this is no excuse for making a work non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Advertising on Planet Debian
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:28:58AM +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote: b) Be serious and prevent spam from reaching our lists *much* more effectively. What we are doing to fight spam in the lists is clearly not enough. What we are doing is mostly what the listmasters believe is appropriate. Unfortunately, what you, listmasters, believe is appropriate might not be the same as users of the lists consider appropriate. Have you ever asked people in the lists how much spam do they want to receive? We're getting roughly the same amount of people complaining about lists being too restrictive as people complaining about the list not being restrictive enough. I'm pretty sick of hearing Santiago bitch about how the debian lists still don't reject all mail, does that count? It's getting *really* old. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:35PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers A tiny fraction of some 55% (214 vs 396) of the voters who bothered to vote on 2004-004, which is all the ones who would possibly have cared, so that would be a majority. Low turnouts are the norm for Debian votes. Hundreds of developers appear to be MIA or apathetic. There's about 900 registered developers, but we've never had much over 500 bother to vote. This sour grapes bullshit is getting really old. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Surveys in debian
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:57:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I have written a short page describing some surveys in and on debian. I also include some pointers to advice on producing good surveys. I'd welcome comments, corrections and suggestions, either on- or off-list. The page lives at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html I'm rather fond of How to lie with statistics as an introduction to what it's all about, not least because it teaches extreme cynicism about anything that smells like a statistic. But possibly even more pertinantly, and in no particular order: - A survey is the worst possible way to answer any question, short of guesswork or religion. It should be employed only when you have no better options, and the result should be treated with extreme scepticism. - A survey will not convince anybody who doesn't already agree with you. It's probably a waste of time. Think again before you bother. - You're supposed to be trying to prove yourself wrong. If you succeed then you've learned something. If you fail despite your best efforts then either you're right, or you suck. Odds are in favour of you sucking. If you try to prove yourself right then you're pretty much guaranteed to succeed, and you've learned nothing. If you don't try to prove anything then you probably won't. - Eliminating bias is impossible; instead, eliminate a need to worry about it by biasing it against whatever answer you're trying to get. That way if you still get the answer, it actually means something. - The most likely answer is normally I don't know. That's what you should get most of the time. If you don't, you're doing something wrong. - A survey that is sent out to a mailing list in the hope that people will respond to it has a built-in sampling bias that you can drive a truck through. Do not let people self-select for sampling; it won't work. (Hint: one of the things your pilot study should cover is how many of the people you select for sampling actually respond, and why the rest didn't) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:23:28PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: only a tiny handful of them had anything beyond single-word answers, and most of those are weak arguments that have been made and debunked many times already. right, so we have a situation where we have good reasons for moving GFDL docs to non-free, but we've failed to communicate these reasons to our user base. I wasn't aware that anybody had even tried. It doesn't seem particularly important. Given the knee-jerk reactions of our users exposed by this survey, we should probably do something thing to adress this. The reaction was exactly what everybody predicted would happen. What were you expecting from a hopelessly biased and braindamaged survey sent to -user? The questions were formulated to permit no other result. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or unredistributable documents are not considered useful). I disagree. Standards documents, even if unmodifiable, are useful. A specification that cannot be updated is not 'useful', it's 'disaster waiting to happen'. Suddenly when you want to add ipv6 support, you find that you have to throw the specification away and write a new one from scratch. You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'. I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a specification promoted by a self-proclaimed 'standards body'. The practical difference? Nothing but bullshit. I hereby declare myself to be a standards body and every specification ever written to be a standard. This is at least as legitimate as w3c, since they did exactly the same thing, and more legitimate than IETF, since they never did but rather just prevaricated into it (building up a long history of shoddy handling and politics along the way). It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one? I wasn't aware that people had expressed problems with the definition of Transparent; it looked pretty good to me. Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly cannot be distributed under the GFDL nor included in Debian under this scheme. Nor can word documents, etc... This conflicts with Derived Works by denying some modifications (and do most understand that as permit all reasonable modifications?) I think it's reasonable to deny some modifications. Derived Works doesn't say must allow any modifications. Just like the GPL denies some freedoms in order to preserve others. You have provided no justification as to why these restrictions can be permitted for 'documentation' (which you haven't defined) and why they cannot be permitted for 'non-documentation'. Thusly, dismissed as hand-waving. and it also contradicts with No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor because no topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose. I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it into a document that has that subject as its main purpose? Because that part of the text was useful to you. Why do you even have to ask? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'. I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a specification promoted by a self-proclaimed 'standards body'. The Good for you. I note that you completely failed to address the rest of my message. Having refuted the assumptions, the rest of your argument collapsed (it was basically a variation on special pleading, this stuff doesn't need to be free because the people who wrote it are special). I didn't consider it necessary to go through line-by-line and point this out. It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation. Assuming I agree, what's that got to do with standards documents (or specifications, if you like)? RFCs, for example, describe protocols which is not software. They're just documentation for software. When the software is modified, they need to be updated to match it. Some arbitrary fluff document about the specification of fooTP is not interesting. What matters is the specification of the protocol served by apache. If it wasn't the protocol served by apache and friends, nobody would care about the document. There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't take a copy of apache and modify it a bit to create another, incompatible protocol for it to serve, that suits some purpose I have, assuming this purpose doesn't involve compatibility with existing HTTP clients. Lots of new protocols are created in this manner. There is no justification for saying that I shouldn't be able to modify the documentation, which includes the IETF's HTTP spec, to reflect this. A reasonable approach would be to change every instance of 'HTTP' in the protocol and spec, strip off the IETF headers and footers, and go from there. You are saying that this should be prohibited, for no appreciable reason. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: fsf-free Should this rather be GFDL-free ?? I read it more like 'Give me what the FSF thinks is Free'. Free what? The FSF openly admits that the GFDL is not a free software license, and they aren't just playing stupid games about the definition of 'software'. They have a definition of what constitutes a free software license, and the GFDL fails it because it's too restrictive. They have never suggested any other definition of 'Free' for other stuff, nor labelled the GFDL as 'Free' other than in its name. Attempts to extract information on this subject are met with dismissal. So goodness knows what it could mean. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:59AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to distribute it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered version is also available. Do you disagree? If so, why? Why is it not sufficient for the copyright owner to disclaim DMCA DRM protection? It is always possible to convert a non-free license into a free one by sufficient modification; often this can be done by attaching a rider to the license. So yes, this probably would be possible. The relevant point is that it *hasn't been done* for most of the stuff released under the GFDL. If your question is Can the copyright owner release stuff under a free license instead? or Can we provide them with a free license to use? then I wonder why you even have to ask. Going around and getting all the licenses fixed is what we do when we give up on trying to get the FSF to fix the thing once, centrally. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:29:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case. I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix the current situation is to propose the Debian Free Documentation Guidelines and modify the SC appropriately. More on this when I have a first draft. We have tried for a very long time to come up with anything vaguely sensible and got nothing. If this proposed DFDG permits restrictions that aren't allowed by the DFSG, make sure you include an explanation of why this should be allowed for 'documentation', why it should *not* be allowed for 'non-documentation', and how to distinguish between packages where it should and should not be allowed. Don't expect much sympathy if you can't give all three of those. A lot of people would be very interested in seeing such a document that actually makes sense. The sticking point has always been that nobody knows how to write one, and it's not for lack of trying. Everybody so far has failed; they either get the DFSG duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or unredistributable documents are not considered useful). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL freedoms
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Regarding your Issues, note that only the DFSG's explanations/examples use the word programs. If you did introduce a simple word change, I think it would be pretty likely to succeed but there would be accusations about editorial changes again. There will always be people sulking about resolutions that have passed which they didn't like. It's just sour grapes. Anyway, there's lots of things about the DFSG which need work. I've got this pencilled in for shortly after sarge releases, along with a big list of stuff to fix. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Survey on FLOSS
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:34:39PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: As a statistician, I am worried that this is yet another under-tested survey form about this important topic being released into the world without a good pilot study first. Where is the pilot study report? I can't figure it out from the project status page, it's not on the dissemination page and there's no downloads page. As somebody who understands and hates statisticians and statistics, I echo the sentiment. This is a terrible survey. Some of the questions (18 for example) seem to assume a particular bias in the respondant. In others (12 and 38), some of the range of possible answers are not covered. The discrimination page is one-sided and not justified. I find several of the questions impossible to accurately answer (either because they call for knowledge about my activities that I have no reason to record, or because they list a set of options which lack one relevant to me), and I disagree with the assumed premises behind several of them. None of them had escape options for none of the above or tell us why this question sucked, or similar. Also, this survey is riddled with the How important do you think this is? style questions, which are notoriously bad at collecting accurate information. And to round it off, different questions give different sets of responses, using different form layouts, and even different numbers of responses. As a parting shot I was particularly impressed by one question where I was asked to rank the importance of Other. I've seen better surveys from teenage students. A detailed critique would be a waste of my time; I suggest that the people responsible ask their relevant professors to do it. And I hate this stupid term FLOSS. It's a blind attempt to lump two entirely discrete groups of people together, who have radically different motivations. A very strange choice of sample set. I would expect the two groups to give very different answers to several of the questions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian compatibility label (Re: Debian's Future in the Coporate World)
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 08:37:20AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: Ok, and now I give the word to the 'Debian don't need no stinking marketing' counter argument :-) Avaunt, smelly marketer. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: VA Linux / Sun Wah Linux to push Debian in China/Japan
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:45:41PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: * Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-02 09:38]: I'm surprised that I haven't seen anything about this on the mailing lists (but OTOH I was probably just asleep - or is it vapourware anyway and we'll never again hear anything about it?) They are pretty serious about working with us and contributing their changes back. That's what everybody says. Only a very small number of the people who say it actually do it. Mind what people do, not only what they say, for actions will betray a lie -- Wizard's Fifth Rule, Terry Goodkind -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way: does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything? Yes. It currently means that we can't ship an installer with support for this hardware, because we don't use material from contrib and non-free by default. Putting these drivers into main instead of contrib would not alter this, because it still wouldn't work without non-free. Any *practical* difference? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:35:59PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 07:51:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way: does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything? Yes. It currently means that we can't ship an installer with support for this hardware, because we don't use material from contrib and non-free by default. Putting these drivers into main instead of contrib would not alter this, because it still wouldn't work without non-free. Any *practical* difference? Yes, quite a lot actually - we can then ask people to feed a floopy or CD containing the vendor-supplied firmware. Do keep up... This might be a valid reason for including the driver in main if it actually happened. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:14:02AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could reverse-engineer and clean room clone them in a country with permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have something that was definitely free. Anyone interested in trying? It's on my todo list, but I have a couple of binary-only drivers to tackle first. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:36:03AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: In the firmware case, the choice is rather different. At present, the choice is not between free firmware or non-free firmware. The choice is between non-free firmware on disk or non-free firmware in ROM. Putting drivers in contrib penalises the former, and as a result implicitly encourages the latter. Note that this is strictly equivalent to the old netscape argument: does the absence of any useful free web browser, mean that netscape should not be 'penalised'? (Our answer was 'no') So, a couple of questions: a) Does having these drivers in contrib benefit either (i) our users In the most basic sense, yes. One of the significant purposes of contrib is to say If you are building a CD without non-free stuff on it, then you can also drop all this other stuff because it won't be any use to you. You also need to turn this question around and ask it the other way: does having these drivers in contrib actually hurt anything? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Free Documentation Guidelines was: License of old GNU Emacs manual
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthew Garrett: Perhaps an easier way to do this would be to look at the DFSG and work out what changes need to be made. We have a set of freedoms that we believe software should provide - rather than providing an entirely different set of freedoms for documentation, we should try to justify any changes in those freedoms. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that free documentation should have all the freedoms that we think should be provided by free software. Do you believe it needs more freedoms? Fewer freedoms? A slightly different set of freedoms? I'd prefer a slightly different set of freedoms, but this goal is impractical. For instance, I believe that the GNU GPL is not a free documentation license because it unnecessarily complicates the distribution of printed copies, Complicates, sure. Unnecessarily? That's just you objecting to the principle of copyleft licenses; it is *necessary* to introduce this complication in order to have a copyleft. To the point of not being free? No. * If upstream includes a copy of an RFC (that is, documentation which is non-free but redistributable), should we really stop shipping pristine sources? I can understand that we don't want to build RFCs into binary packages, but OTOH, the pristine sources concept has a reason. Pristine source is a very minor benefit. Free source is a very major one. Pristine source is just a 'nice to have': do it whenever you can, but don't worry about it when you can't. * Shouldn't documentation include proper source code, including source for most of its artwork? Yes, of course. Free software needs free documentation. It's not free unless I can modify it to match the changes I made to the software. Anything obstructing that cannot possibly be free. What about documentation indexes? Should it be possible to regenerate them automatically after the documentation has been modified? Too vague. Sometimes. * What about non-technical prose? Does it have a place in Debian at all? Not really, but if it concidentally happens to be free then it doesn't matter if it goes in. Can we aford some invariant parts, such as license texts, copyright statements and legal disclaimers, credits, mission statements, provided that they are neither executable code nor functional end-user documentation? No. The exception is the bits which are required by law, not license holder (and then only grudgingly, but we don't really have time to sit and wait for legislators to get a clue). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: documentation x executable code
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for documentation than executables? I always go back to the technical standards when asked that. Clearly, if anyone can change a standard (without going through whatever is the revision procedure for that standard), it loses most of its most important characterstics. It is no longer capable of ensuring that all implementantions are based on common ground, for example. But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to modify the IMAP RFC. And indeed, specifications *must* be as free as the software they specify for precisely this reason. It is absolutely vital that when I change a piece of software, I can update the specification to match. This is the same as Why free software needs free documentation. The situation with the RFCs is an unmitigated disaster, and we should not encourage it to continue by supporting them. Those documents should all have been released under free licenses, and they weren't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Limiting number of post from a poster per day per list
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:34:44PM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: Debian is essentially a direct democracy, so let us work as such when needed. Yurgh, no it is not. Debian is essentially an eclectic anarchy. We do not practise the tyranny of the masses around here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Limiting number of post from a poster per day per list
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:17:07PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: There is a general rule (I don't know where it comes from) that reads similar to If the number of mails in a thread has exceeded ten (or a screen height) it is already off-topic. This is really just a reflection of: People usually forget to change the subject line when they change the subject Anything on a Debian list that looks like a single large 'thread' is invariably several dozen threads, mislabelled. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:59:55PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Stephen Frost writes: The fact that Debian doesn't 'exist'... Organizations do not need to be incorporated to have legal existence. You can't sue it and it can't hold assets. It's just a group of individuals. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: I don't think we're talking about lottery-winning here. In my head we're not talking about money going to developers either, initially. I guess my vision is something like: Develop a dependable revenue stream unless current donation levels are sufficient to act. Begin to cover some of Debian's operating costs, mainly on-going costs first, ie: bandwidth for master and other Debian infrastructure machines, maintenance/upkeep for machines already owned, etc. If there are requirements for additional machines and funds available, then acquire those, if funds aren't available, then ask for donations of hardware or money to cover them (this applies to everything, really). Work to cover other costs- accounting help, asset tracking, etc, as necessary. Once Debian is covering it's normal operating costs (which, unfortunately, probably aren't even tracked currently.. I don't know, they should be tracked by SPI, really, but I seriously doubt anyone's really thought about it at all) wrt bandwidth, equipment, accounting, etc, *then* maybe look at possibly hiring on staff. No, it wouldn't be possible to hire all developers at once or something silly like that. I would tend to think infrastruture/coordination jobs would be first and then, who knows, maybe someday we could all work for SPI on Debian- a non-profit organization working in the public interest to develop and build the best open-source operating system consistent with our SC. It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks in order to do this. That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some thoughts along these lines before, I imagine. You're thinking about founding a corporation. There are plenty of those already. It is not necessary to hijack Debian's name and trademarks in order to do this. That corporation cannot and will not be the organisation currently referred to as 'Debian'. Nor could it do what Debian does. The absence of control is fundamental to our organisational structure. SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks. It holds them in trust. That is not the same thing. I don't believe that there's an absence of control and I find it amusing that you seem to think there is. You're delusional. Nobody in the project can tell me what to do. That's written into the constitution. You have clearly been taken over by aliens. This shameless attempt to turn Debian into a puppet of the US corporate government will not be permitted to succeed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:33:14PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: Sure, you could spend money on any of these things. But you can't *justify* spending money on them, because we don't need it. And I disagree, and these are only a few things upon which we could spend money, if we weren't so terribly concerned that it's a bad idea to spend money and we should just save it all in case the US gets nuked. If the US gets nuked then all our money will be worthless paper, since it's currently stored in US funds. Debian is sustainable precisely because it operates without money. If we fall into the trap of just throwing money at problems then it will rapidly become the only way to solve any problem (how can we ask for hardware donations when we're willing to buy hardware?), and that isn't sustainable. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate discussion to have w/ SPI, since they probably fit this category at least slightly closer than Debian does Yes, it would appear to be legitimate for SPI to do this sort of thing. That should be done without involving Debian. Little hard to get much done when you don't have the involvment of the largest (far and away) project- we've seen that before. That's SPI's organisational problem. We should not let it become our problem. Debian is not a part of SPI, and is not controlled by SPI. SPI seems to have difficulty in realising this. They hold our assets, nothing more. We need it to remain this way. SPI will just have to get used to it. though, honestly, Debian seems pretty well lined up in that category too. Really can't see why you think that. hot-babe. Are you seriously suggesting that is a significant part of what Debian does? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constant revenue source (was: Google ads on debian.org)
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:08:23AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:31:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: Do you have any suggestion as to something that'd be a consistent revenue source for Debian that you *wouldn't* be opposed to? Maybe a Debian Magazine (with/without ads?)? Or a subscriber-only Debian website (run by those willing to provide the content for it, obviously)? What about Debian selling CDs directly (though, well, it'd help if we released on a more regular basis for that, but then, that'd be a good thing for us to do *anyway*)? SPI could start a sponsorship program for Debian and the other associated programs like the FSF Europe did[1]. That could mean that there would be 200 s upporters with EUR 10/month, ..., and 2 with 500 EUR/month or something. Does anybody actually have any uses for such a revenue source that would not be better served by creating an independent organisation? Not *entirely* sure what you mean here. As mentioned elsewhere before, SPI might have some use for an accounting service at the very least. That should be done by SPI, not us. Additionally, Debian has funded developers to debconf before, I'm not really sure that's a good idea. Free holidays for developers doesn't seem like something we should be doing. as well as retained some amount for emergency spending for hardware or whatnot. We're already covered in that department. That might be justified if we didn't have any money in the bank, but we do. Other potential uses for revenue could be buying obscure hardware off eBay or from wherever that we don't have enough of, and possibly helping to cover the costs of hosting that equipment. Don't seem to have any trouble there either. I don't recall the last time we had difficulty obtaining and hosting equipment. The problem has always been getting stuff done with the equipment we've already got. Sure, you could spend money on any of these things. But you can't *justify* spending money on them, because we don't need it. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate discussion to have w/ SPI, since they probably fit this category at least slightly closer than Debian does Yes, it would appear to be legitimate for SPI to do this sort of thing. That should be done without involving Debian. though, honestly, Debian seems pretty well lined up in that category too. Really can't see why you think that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: I would object to Debian itself selling copies of the CD's, or requiring payment for access to jigdo files or the archive, or a pay-per-bug option too. Having a pay-per-bug is an interesting discussion too provided the results of the bugfix are made available to all under an appropriate license or whatever. I don't think you've seriously thought this through. Go and figure out how you'd do it in a manner that would prevent abuse. I concluded a long time ago that it is not feasible. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Google ads on debian.org
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:08:41PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: I received the following message from someone at Google: Google is interested in advertising on debian.org. I realize your site currently isn't running any advertising, however what we're proposing is much different, and complimentary to your sites goal. Normally, I reply to advertising requests on debian.org with a polite no. However, given that google ads are widely considered different to normal ads, and might even enhance a web site, I thought I'd ask on -project to see what other people think. I can't imagine what we'd use the money for, and it'd just be more bandwidth consumption for stupid users (personally, I blocked google ads a long time ago). Where would be the point? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote: Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has hired a large number of the senior Debian developers) considered to be the solution to this problem? Hiring developers away from a project, so that they no longer spend time on it, is not normally considered a good solution. Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical. Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's modus operandi (despite all the PR claiming otherwise). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:28:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical. Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's modus operandi (despite all the PR claiming otherwise). Being in a position to know, much more so than yourself, I can say that you are mistaken. I can also point to thousands of lines of patches, representing work funded by Canonical, which are now present in Debian or filed in debbugs waiting to be merged. Being in a position of judging the facts without preconceptions, I can point to plenty more that aren't. Handwaving and FUD are no substitute for facts. Nor are arguments from authority, or a carefully selected sample of facts. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote: Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has hired a large number of the senior Debian developers) considered to be the solution to this problem? Hiring developers away from a project, so that they no longer spend time on it, is not normally considered a good solution. Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical. Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's modus operandi (despite all the PR claiming otherwise). Sounds like someone is ticked off that there's somebody out there who cares about regular releases of an Arch client, and making one that's usable by someone other than revision control gurus... Try X. baz is one of the few things Canonical funds that is actually being done right (so far), and it's no thanks to the company for that. Alternatively, try cscvs, which was effectively stalled for months. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:42:35PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote: I was looking to make a contribution to some aspect of the open source movement and noticed that the FSF (in America at least) gives 5 email aliases in the member.fsf.org domain, see https://agia.fsf.org/associate/benefits. Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean you've already got the domain name. Personaly I'd rather donate to Debian than to the FSF, I think Debian needs it more. We don't have any use for money right now. What we have mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: Isn't this a great idea that Debian could borrow? I think this could generate some nice publicity/income for the Debian project, I mean you've already got the domain name. Personaly I'd rather donate to Debian than to the FSF, I think Debian needs it more. We don't have any use for money right now. What we have mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea. We do have use for money and the Debian project currently spends quite some money through the year in order to improve its presence and help its development. While technically true, this is highly misleading. We can sustain the current rate of spending for quite a long time using only the money currently in the accounts. So we don't need any more. What I said stands, so long as you don't idiotically read 'most' as 'all'. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FW: Mail forwarding in return for Debian donation
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote: We don't have any use for money right now. What we have mostly just sits in a bank account getting slowly devalued by inflation. So fund raising exercises aren't really a good idea. Oh. Okay at least I don't have to feel bad about using Debian and not contributing, but I have to say I find this very strange. Surely Debian has developers that would love to spend more time working on Debian than on their day-jobs, but don't do so because they need to pay the rent etc? We don't have a lot of money; certainly nowhere near that much. We just don't have any significant expenses either. The project doesn't consume money for normal operation. Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has hired a large number of the senior Debian developers) considered to be the solution to this problem? Hiring developers away from a project, so that they no longer spend time on it, is not normally considered a good solution. And what about Debian itself making a donation to for example FSF Europe? It's been proposed before, hasn't happened yet. Doesn't look likely to happen; spending Debian money is very difficult. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using Debian logo in film
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:05:20PM +0900, Joichi Ito wrote: I am working on a Japanese movie where we're casting the some of the smart characters to be using Debian Linux. Do you know if I can use the Debian logo on the desktop or as a sticker on their laptop? The 'open use' logo (just the swirl) can be used for anything that refers to Debian. Yeah, that's fuzzy, can mean just about anything. In practical terms people do use it for just about anything. If so, can I clear the rights somehow? Not really, we're currently completely incapable of making decisions regarding the logos on anything resembling a short timescale, even for stuff which actually matters. I can't imagine why anybody would care what you do with it, though. People stick those things all over the place. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:17:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: 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 You can't combine things of different type like that. I stole four of your apples and left six oranges. This is okay because overall, you've got more now. But I was making applesauce. [Yeah, it's an instance of apples and oranges] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital 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: Patent clauses in licenses
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:55:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Now, in Andrew's example: Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in its license. Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes an extra feature. Here, company B must license all its patents which apply to the modified version for use with the modified version or any subsequent modified version. Otherwise the version isn't free Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the modified version infringes some of its patents. If company B countersues alleging that the software released by A violates its patents, then either (1) the software released by B is covered by the same patents or (2) somehow, it isn't [Possible; B could have removed some patented features as well] After thinking about it, these cases don't differ. But yes, it's irrelevant. The existence and status of any patents other than the ones I explicitly mentioned will not affect the outcome; A has a forcing move to destroy B's fork which they can exercise at their discretion. Does A care about the countersuit? Maybe, if A absolutely wants to continue distributing A's version of the software. Assume they've got huge reserves of cash and can just sit it out. It doesn't really matter; that countersuit cannot possibly result in B being permitted to continue their branch. I suppose this is a case where A can screw B. Freedom to fork is effectively denied. This is reasonably simple to engineer just by patenting everything you can think of in the given field. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Andrew Suffield: Termination for non-compliance, in a publically redistributed work, is just a reflection of copyright law; it doesn't really change what you can and can't do. We now have a (lower) German court ruling that this isn't the case, i.e. that the termination clause is effective and you can't just get another copy of the same work. It's rather surprising because it conflicts with our equivalent of the first-sale doctrine Yes, this is in conflict with basic notions of copyright in most of the world; I would hope that it gets overturned. It can only lead to insanity unless the conflict is corrected - and doing so by adjusting copyright law to fit would finally create a society where Stallman's right to read essay has been fulfilled. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:48:25AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Michael Poole writes: Company B's defensive claims also affect all other users of the original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe. Why do you assume that company B's claims must have to do with the original software, or even with software at all? Because that was the scenario I selected for an example. Why are you questioning a hypothetical? This is an example of a method by which the proposed clause is easily abused to prevent the work from being free software. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:50:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:14:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So your belief that the GPL is free is entirely based on a belief that RMS is wrong, and your belief that RMS is wrong is based on an absence of something happening? No, it's based on the paragraph which you oh-so-convinently deleted. Don't play bullshit games. In general, we respect the interpretation of licenses that the license author and copyright holder wish to enforce. We may not always agree with it, but we tend to respect it (see the Pine case, for example). You have come up with an argument for why you believe RMS to be incorrect, but you have come up with no argument for why we should act on your interpretation. I do not see a need to argue that it is worthwhile to discard non-compelling attempts to declare the GPL non-free, especially when the copyright holder has frequently demonstrated that they're just generating noise. We do not respect them when they make absurd claims about interpretation. Reiser is a good example. The clause you are referring to in the Apache License 2.0 has no effect on software without patents, due in large part to the efforts of -legal. It's probably non-free when applied to software with patents and enforced. This isn't particularly surprising; software patents are non-free is more or less a given. =20 Enforced against whom? Doesn't matter. So a single enforcement action of a patent at some point in the past should result in us treating that software as non-free? How about patents that are only enforced in certain countries? I'm actually genuinely interested in this. Our track record on dealing with patented code isn't entirely consistent. We probably ought to make that clearer. I can't think of anything else that makes sense. If they've enforced it once then they'll do it again; our stance on patents is largely based on the assumption that they *never* will. Besides, everybody is a potential Debian user; it has to be free for all of them. This indicates that a proprietary license is free if the software is useful enough. Therefore it's wrong. =20 I'm sorry, I honestly don't see how you get to that conclusion. You said that a restriction is free if it protects free software more than it hinders it. Therefore any license is free if it is in some way sufficiently useful to free software, regardless of what restrictions it introduces. You have introduced the notion that restrictions can be excused. In order to be interesting in this case, the restrictions must have the aim of helping free software. The usefulness or otherwise of the software is completely irrelevent. Sorry, I though that was clear from context. So a restriction is free if it says that you can only have a license to the software in exchange for releasing software under a free license valued at a minimum of £20k (insert some arbitrary valuation scheme in here)? How about one that says you can have a license in exchange for a donation of £300 to Debian, or the FSF? We don't consider that to be a problem because we believe that the right to receive GPLed code with no further restrictions is more important than the right to, say, produce a derived work of GPLed code and OpenSSL. =2E..the SSLeay license, part of OpenSSL, which has a clause that was written for the explicit purpose of hindering combination with GPLed works. So the SSLeay license has a restriction that hinders free software? Your argument appears to imply that we should consider this non-free. Instead, we appear to have decided that the restriction doesn't hinder the freedoms that we consider important. Again you have deleted the relevant paragraph where I answered this. My suspicion is that if we were writing the DFSG today rather than in 1997, we wouldn't have any significant qualms about accepting licenses which restricted your ability to use software patents against the developers. I'm pretty sure that we'd include a clause to explicitly prohibit it. I can't see any evidence whatsoever that there's a strong majority who would agree with that. Then I can't see any evidence that there's a strong majority supporting your attempt to hand over control of free software to large corporations. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-17 10:05]: The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that terminate if you do something wrong - we've just come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that thing. In the past, we've accepted various compromises on freedom because they help free software. I agree with this reasoning and think that we should treat at least Any patent action against the licensor connected to the licensed work as free. I'd like to hear more possible scenarios what Any patent action against the licensor might mean in reality, such as Nathanael's IBM example. I think such possible scenarios/examples are a good way to think about the implications of these clauses. Here's a scenario for you: Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in its license. Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes an extra feature. Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the modified version infringes some of its patents. Company A no longer has a license to the modified version, which it didn't want anyway, so it is not concerned about this. Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill its modified version. Company B has no practical defence against this lawsuit, so the modified version is killed. They have been effectively trapped in a double-bind. [Somebody mentioned to me that there have been responses from killfiled trolls trying to troll this scenario] Nobody in this scenario holds any patents over any code which they wrote. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill its modified version. Company B has no practical defence against this lawsuit, so the modified version is killed. They have been effectively trapped in a double-bind. Why are we concerned about people who patent pieces of software while claiming that they'll only use these patents defensively? You cannot reject a user because you don't like them for some reason, and say that they do not deserve the same freedoms as everybody else and therefore it doesn't matter that the software isn't free for them. That's the sort of thing we're trying to *stop*. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:09:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: If Debian decided that enforcing (any kind of) patents is not a right of our users we wish to protect, we could come up with criteria that copyright clauses dealing with patents have to meet. However, if there is no consensus that patents in general are evil, we won't be able to reach a consistent position (apart from forbidding such clauses, including the anti-patent clause in the GPL). There is no such clause in the GPL. Rather, it has a clause (which is explicitly referred to as intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License) that says you have to fulfill the terms of the license - which means you have to grant all the required rights to anybody to whom you distribute the software. Coincidentally, if there are patents on the software which you don't control or won't license, then you can't do this. So you can't distribute it. Any copyleft license does this, really. The clause in the GPL is probably a no-op, and only present to underscore the point. This is an example of how to write a free license that defends against software patents. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Why are we concerned about people who patent pieces of software while claiming that they'll only use these patents defensively? You cannot reject a user because you don't like them for some reason, and say that they do not deserve the same freedoms as everybody else and therefore it doesn't matter that the software isn't free for them. The GPL rejects users who want to distribute binaries without source. The MPL rejects users who want to sue the licensor for infringement of patents connected to the software. Why do you believe that one of these cases is significantly different to the other? We've been over this already. One is a significant burden, the other is not. This has got nothing to do with the point I raised, so I presume that you concede it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 12:04:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:12:53AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: The implication of the post I replied to was that any license that allows the removal of some set of the rights it grants should be non-free. The GPL is an obvious counter-example, since it allows you to lose all rights associated with it. Termination for non-compliance, in a publically redistributed work, is just a reflection of copyright law; it doesn't really change what you can and can't do. (You can always get another licensed copy). Every free license does this, really. RMS has in the past claimed that failure to abide by the terms of the GPL results in a permanent loss of those rights (in respect to a specific piece of software, at least). If you're going to disagree with the copyright holder of what is probably still the largest single body of GPLed software in Debian at present, I'm going to want evidence of a decent legal standpoint for this opinion. RMS has in the past claimed that this has happened to various groups. RMS has been ignored. RMS has not pursued the matter, so one presumes the FSF counsel have indicated that he can't. Whenever you receive a copy of a GPLed work from anybody, you receive a license for it as well. If your license has been terminated due to non-compliance, you merely have to receive another copy from anybody to get a new license. For publically distributed software this is trivial. The use of a termination clause to introduce other restrictions (other than you must comply with the license), rather than simply writing those restrictions in directly, indicates that they probably aren't things you can write in directly, such as restrictions on use (copyright abuse aside for the moment; that doesn't help us, it just employs more lawyers). Such things are non-free restrictions (the set of things you're not allowed to restrict in a copyright license is fairly small). As far as I can tell, your argument is that You may not initiate patent suits against the licensor is equivilent to Initiating patent suits against the licensor will result in the loss of your rights under this license. I would tend to agree. You then appear to claim that the first is obviously non-free, and as a result the second is non-free. I see no obvious reason that the first point of this assertion is true. If you want to claim that the only restrictions on freedom we currently accept are those that are entirely controlled under copyright law, you may be correct (the Apache License 2.0 is an obvious counter-example, but you could always claim that that's counter to normal policy and thus some sort of error). The clause you are referring to in the Apache License 2.0 has no effect on software without patents, due in large part to the efforts of -legal. It's probably non-free when applied to software with patents and enforced. This isn't particularly surprising; software patents are non-free is more or less a given. [For the rest, read the mail you're replying to; it doesn't appear relevant] We don't accept restrictions as free because they use one branch of the law - we accept restrictions as free because they are either unimportant or because they protect free software more than they hinder it. This indicates that a proprietary license is free if the software is useful enough. Therefore it's wrong. We don't accept restrictions because they protect free software more than they hinder it. We accept restrictions because they do not appreciably hinder it. There is no excuse for significant restrictions, nor has one ever been excused. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:14:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 12:04:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: RMS has in the past claimed that failure to abide by the terms of the GPL results in a permanent loss of those rights (in respect to a specific piece of software, at least). If you're going to disagree with the copyright holder of what is probably still the largest single body of GPLed software in Debian at present, I'm going to want evidence of a decent legal standpoint for this opinion. RMS has in the past claimed that this has happened to various groups. RMS has been ignored. RMS has not pursued the matter, so one presumes the FSF counsel have indicated that he can't. So your belief that the GPL is free is entirely based on a belief that RMS is wrong, and your belief that RMS is wrong is based on an absence of something happening? No, it's based on the paragraph which you oh-so-convinently deleted. Don't play bullshit games. If you want to claim that the only restrictions on freedom we currently accept are those that are entirely controlled under copyright law, you may be correct (the Apache License 2.0 is an obvious counter-example, but you could always claim that that's counter to normal policy and thus some sort of error). The clause you are referring to in the Apache License 2.0 has no effect on software without patents, due in large part to the efforts of -legal. It's probably non-free when applied to software with patents and enforced. This isn't particularly surprising; software patents are non-free is more or less a given. Enforced against whom? Doesn't matter. We don't accept restrictions as free because they use one branch of the law - we accept restrictions as free because they are either unimportant or because they protect free software more than they hinder it.=20 This indicates that a proprietary license is free if the software is useful enough. Therefore it's wrong. I'm sorry, I honestly don't see how you get to that conclusion. You said that a restriction is free if it protects free software more than it hinders it. Therefore any license is free if it is in some way sufficiently useful to free software, regardless of what restrictions it introduces. You have introduced the notion that restrictions can be excused. We don't accept restrictions because they protect free software more than they hinder it. We accept restrictions because they do not appreciably hinder it. There is no excuse for significant restrictions, nor has one ever been excused. The GPL's incompatibility with various other licenses hinders free software. This is a feature of both licenses together. You cannot claim that the GPL is somehow responsible, for example: We don't consider that to be a problem because we believe that the right to receive GPLed code with no further restrictions is more important than the right to, say, produce a derived work of GPLed code and OpenSSL. ...the SSLeay license, part of OpenSSL, which has a clause that was written for the explicit purpose of hindering combination with GPLed works. There is nothing in the GPL that you can point to and say This clause hinders free software. Furthermore, this is not a significant restriction. It is trivial to release your free software under a GPL-compatible license, and this is not appreciably burdensome. The occasions where it doesn't happen can invariably be traced to laziness or political obstructionism. My suspicion is that if we were writing the DFSG today rather than in 1997, we wouldn't have any significant qualms about accepting licenses which restricted your ability to use software patents against the developers. I'm pretty sure that we'd include a clause to explicitly prohibit it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-17 10:05]: The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that terminate if you do something wrong - we've just come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that thing. In the past, we've accepted various compromises on freedom because they help free software. I agree with this reasoning and think that we should treat at least Any patent action against the licensor connected to the licensed work as free. I'd like to hear more possible scenarios what Any patent action against the licensor might mean in reality, such as Nathanael's IBM example. I think such possible scenarios/examples are a good way to think about the implications of these clauses. Here's a scenario for you: Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in its license. Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes an extra feature. Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version. Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the modified version infringes some of its patents. Company A no longer has a license to the modified version, which it didn't want anyway, so it is not concerned about this. Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill its modified version. Company B has no practical defence against this lawsuit, so the modified version is killed. They have been effectively trapped in a double-bind. I just pulled that one out of the air. There are countless more like it. All you are accomplishing is to permit copyright holders more control over their software; this cannot be a good thing. Trying to game the legal system *doesn't work*. This is inevitable from first principles; significant arbitrary restrictions are non-free. You will always be able to find ways to abuse them to gain arbitrary degrees of control over the software. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:12:53AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:05:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that terminate if you do something wrong - we've just come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that thing. That merely reduces to some licenses exist which are free and some exist which are not. This is trivially satisfied by the existence of one work under the MIT license (which is free), and one under the MS EULA (which is not) - and yes, we've just come to the conclusion that one is acceptable and the other not. The implication of the post I replied to was that any license that allows the removal of some set of the rights it grants should be non-free. The GPL is an obvious counter-example, since it allows you to lose all rights associated with it. Termination for non-compliance, in a publically redistributed work, is just a reflection of copyright law; it doesn't really change what you can and can't do. (You can always get another licensed copy). Every free license does this, really. The use of a termination clause to introduce other restrictions (other than you must comply with the license), rather than simply writing those restrictions in directly, indicates that they probably aren't things you can write in directly, such as restrictions on use (copyright abuse aside for the moment; that doesn't help us, it just employs more lawyers). Such things are non-free restrictions (the set of things you're not allowed to restrict in a copyright license is fairly small). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:05:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that terminate if you do something wrong - we've just come to the conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that thing. That merely reduces to some licenses exist which are free and some exist which are not. This is trivially satisfied by the existence of one work under the MIT license (which is free), and one under the MS EULA (which is not) - and yes, we've just come to the conclusion that one is acceptable and the other not. That's all rather obvious and not particularly interesting... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: internationalization
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:34:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: Em Ter, 2004-08-24 às 21:29, MJ Ray escreveu: what the heck is it with the euro? [...] By the way, I've not set up the euro specifically on my systems, but I pressed AltGr and 4 and it just appeared. I do have utf8 encoding, though, so maybe I'm unusual. me too, I do use ISO-8859-1 and when I press compose+e+= the euro symbol just came up... And I didn't configure anything about it... That's a little less reliable; level three shift (XFree86 historically calls it Mode_switch, default mapping is RALT) is handled server-side, but compose (Multi_key, default mapping is shifted RALT) is a feature of the X *client*. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, lists and discrimination
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 09:35:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On the flip side, how about contributions from people who may not participate if the culture turned too touchy feely and sickeningly sweet? Yep, I think it behoves us to consider that as well. As I said in a previous message (http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/08/msg00053.html), we should examine what changes to the project's culture need to take place, and whether those would be net-beneficial. It might turn out that the rough-and-tumble, highly competitive and confrontational nature of the project is what creates the excellence we have, I have in the past sketched out my analysis of Debian's socio-political structure in various forums - and this is essentially my conclusion, stated differently. More formally, we self-select for a certain kind of people by being the sort of place which other kinds of people do not wish to be. That kind of person is particularly good at working on a project like Debian. This is not a social club. Attracting people is *not the point*. Trying to turn it into one is a stupid waste of time. Do something useful instead. Fortunately Debian is fairly inevitable - this is what we will always build given no constraints - and will reappear under another name and in the same structure if this one gets broken by well-meaning fools. But that's not a good reason to do it. However, characterising it as competitive or confrontational is highly inaccurate. That's the interpretation of the people who don't belong here (they tend to be vocal until they go away); people who go looking for confrontations will always find them, while people who don't generally won't. It's blindingly obvious (if you read the lists carefully) that 99% of hostility in Debian is in the eye of the beholder - that's about normal for humans, really. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:17:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: 3) The way the DFSG is currently interpreted by debian-legal is not obvious to an outsider, and some interpretations are felt to be excessively extreme. Some companies feel that various licenses were genuine efforts to be DFSG free, but the discussion that followed their release was sufficiently confrontational to reduce any desire to fix any bugs. Most of the time, for random buggy licenses, we either get an immediate clarification/update to the license, or we get no response, or we get a (stock) response and no response to explanations of why it was wrong. Confrontational tends to be an excuse to avoid discussing the issue. X-Oz is the last company I remember playing this game. It generally takes the form of We're giving you the software, so you must accept our judgement of the license, and we are not interested in reasons why we might be wrong. I can't imagine how we could do things differently. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Ineffectual DPL?
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 10:46:29PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:47:40PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Philippe Troin wrote: I always vote, probably for the same reasons I vote in my country's elections (mostly to prevent the people I disagree with the most to get into office) and without having any trust nor hopes in the system whatsoever. Voting in real elections makes sense, to stop bad seeds from getting into office. I don't think there's actually any evidence to support that. Hell yes there is. There would be even more incredibly dangerous people in the US government than there already are, if everyone thought that. Oh, it doesn't matter, Bush and Gore are the same. (Well, in that case it didn't matter because the election was *stolen*, but it's quite clear by now that a Gore administration wouldn't have decided to trash environmental protection or doctor all the scientific reports, for instance.) I'd say that election underscores the point, but anyway: I don't think it matters one whit whether Bush or Gore was elected. The president doesn't make the decisions, he just takes the credit or blame for them. The US has always been run by bankers and corporations; whoever is sitting in the seat, they'll either do what they're told, or be removed by somebody that will. I don't see any justification for your claim that a Gore administration would not have behaved in the same way. In less capitalistic societies, the dominant forces are usually those who control public opinion, but the effect is the same. Democracy is a *myth*, used to placate the masses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Some Comments on Sexism in #debian
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:31:52PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: Within our project, if you consider the most effective DDs*, you're going to also be thinking of the most reasonable, thoughtful, and friendly ones. No, I'd say that's entirely wrong. The rest of your mail was based on similarly dumb ideas. AS I find your suggestion that this is something we should be AS doing to be fairly offensive, so you've already failed. Hey, sure. It's impossible not to offend anyone. But it's always possible to deal with people politely and respectfully. How they react is their own business. That attitude was the cause of the Earth-Minbari war. The rest of the world does not share your notions of polite and respectful, for all values of your. I find yours to be pretty much the opposite. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
