Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
El martes, 26 de junio de 2007 a las 23:16:50 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli escribía: Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)? Not a big It's targeted to finding the one winner, but it's easy to adapt to finding a list: get the winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner, etc. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía: We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's required by it. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribía: No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's required by it. The DFSG apply to The Debian system. The social contract doesn't define what The Debian system is. We could define it as What's No, but it says that Debian are the producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system (should be fixed some day). So, the Debian system does not include anything not produced (or provided) by Debian. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
El viernes, 7 de abril de 2006 a las 19:27:52 +0900, JC Helary escribía: Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly contribute translations. Ie. Translators mainly _translate_. What do you call translation maintenance anyway ? Well, after a translation is made, there may be errors in it. Or the program is updated so there are new/modified/deleted strings, so the translation must be updated. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: please help
El Jueves, 18 de Agosto de 2005 18:47, martin f krafft escribió: We certainly do not host any pornographic content, so someone must be abusing our services if that's what you see. Please provide us with links to the content so we can take appropriate action. It's an archived spam mail: http://lists.debian.org/debian-beowulf/2005/01/msg00016.html
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
O Martes, 14 de Xuño de 2005 ás 11:25:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribía: I think this argument is moderately persuasive. DFSG 4 allows a license to require a name change on modification. If Debian is granted an extra permission to keep the name the same, but that freedom is not passed on to downstream recipients, is the license free? It could be argued that I'd interpret that as Debian must not accept any rights which are not granted to the general public. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL freedoms
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 14:07:05 +0200, Thibaut VARENE escribía: This is where i disagree. I think we have to be comprehensive when dealing with acceptation of licenses: When balancing the interests of our users and our commitment to freedoms, we should be able to tell what is free *enough* for our purposes. But we have already traced a line. The DFSG already contains compromises some of us don't like very much but accept anyway (such as accepting patch clauses). Aren't you really suggesting to move the line? ;-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation x executable code
O Mércores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 19:42:46 +1100, Craig Sanders escribía: because the DFSG explicitly allows a license to restrict modification so that it is only permitted by patch. As long as we can distribute a modified binary. There's no way we can distribute a GFDL-licensed document with a patched-modified invariant section, no matter how many compiling or processing passes we give to it. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Re: Debiam auch für IBM xSeries Server?
O Luns, 9 de Agosto de 2004 ás 16:16:52 +0200, Marc Neuhausen escribía: habt Ihr einen Kunden, der Euer Debian Linux auf einem intel-basierenden IBM xSeries Server (z.B. x345) einsetzt? Diese Maschinen sind für Suse und Yes, Debian works perfectly in IBM xSeries servers. We use them here at work and install them for our customers, with no problem at all. -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Re: quejas de un distribuidor que ustedes recomiendan
O Martes, 4 de Maio de 2004 ás 00:28:37 +0200, Cuauhtemoc Mendez Viveros escribía: Short summary: he ordered Debian Linux from this shop, he paid, the shop did not send the box and will not answer inquiries. El pasado 16 de abril hice la siguiente compra, en un distribuidor que ustedes recomiendan Tienda Linux en Mexico -- Número de Pedido: 14835 Pedido Detallado: http://www.linuxenmexico.com/tienda/account_history_info.php?order_id=14835 Fecha del Pedido: viernes 16 abril, 2004 [...] -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
O Martes, 30 de Setembro de 2003 ás 18:26:18 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía:
developers using a mathematical formula. It is later compared to a
natural number, number of developers
Deja vu. Could it be that you stopped reading my uninteresting
post after finishing the first paragraph? I included K's formula a
No, just after your second attempt to argue with the dictionary.
in fact describing the rounding rules for K would probably be quite
cumbersome and prone to subtle errors (as well as useful for nothing).
The question of whether or not K is being rounded is still
controversial. Even more so is the question of WHY it's controversial.
It's not controversial at all unless you are extremely bored and need to
invent a controversy to keep yourself busy.
What exactly don't you understand? K is not rounded. You need not round it
to compare it.
The constitution says at least K developers. That means K developers or
more. The meaning of that is unambiguous even if it is not possible to have
exactly K developers.
Anyway, I say it's being rounded, and the language is already verbose
and obscure. Such obscurity leads to odd controversies like this
thread. Clarifying it would indeed be worthwhile, if only to set a
better example.
It needs no clarification since the language is perfectly clear, even to
someone who has English as his third language, like me. It is your own fault
if you do not want to understand it.
(Excuse a last minor carp: you say In fact... would probably... --
but what's probable and hasn't occured can't really be a fact.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
idiom
[...]
4: an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the
meanings of the words that make it up [syn: {idiomatic
expression}, {phrasal idiom}, {set phrase}, {phrase}]
--
Tarrío
(Compostela)
Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
O Domingo, 28 de Setembro de 2003 ás 15:21:46 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía: Something is being rounded, and the resulting quantity enumerates developers. But is 'K' the number of developers? K is only a real number which is computed from the number of developers using a mathematical formula. It is later compared to a natural number, number of developers. You needn't round K to compare it to a natural number; in fact describing the rounding rules for K would probably be quite cumbersome and prone to subtle errors (as well as useful for nothing). -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
O Venres, 26 de Setembro de 2003 ás 04:20:33 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía: By such mathematical standards, press flubs like Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim, or Red Tape Holds Up Bridge** are perfectly correct, since At least K other Developers is perfectly clear even if K is fractional. Last time I checked, even extremely mutilated people counted as 1, not as a fraction. When K=3.141592 (to set an example), At least K means effectively 4 or more, since 4 is the lowest natural number which equals or is greater than 3.141592. -- Tarrío (Compostela)
