Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-05 17:48:50 + Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote: We have a commitment to maintain it as long as it is needed (social contract) and we should abide by that commitment; not chop and change for ideological reasons. What is the temporal scope of our social contract? Current and past releases? That and the release under development? Forever? If forever, did the project's aims and methods get fixed in stone when it was issued? Why is there a way to change it in the constitution? [...] I don't think that would be any better morally than a commercial firm's decision to abandon support for a product which was not sufficiently profitable. Would anyone argue that orphaning or deleting individual packages was immoral? That happens already. In the end, reliability and loyalty to our users are a lot more important than ideological purity. The reliability and loyalty case for non-free is dubious, as we can't properly test, verify or repair some of it. The reason for providing non-free is just the same as it ever was: for the convenience of users who want to use Debian and also need to use packages that do not meet DFSG requirements. I think this could probably be done better by improvements in support for packages not in the Debian archive, like the Origin and Bugs fields. Any user who doesn't like non-free can simply exclude it from his sources.list. Are developers who will not agree to use non-free blocked from jobs where they ought to deal with it? Are there such jobs? The time to get rid of non-free is when it no longer has any maintained packages; not until then. Will that ever happen? Will non-free packagers work towards this? Does this mean that you would support this proposal if Mr Suffield goes on a killing spree of DDs who package for non-free? ;-) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-05 14:19:02 + Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type packages to use. /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers (It's already there, and has been for a while) Near the end, it suggests not doing it that way. Instead, it suggests what I think is discussed at http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/debian-policy-200011/threads.html#00183 but it's not in the policy manual yet. Bugs.debian.org/77960 seems to be open about it. It seems like a good idea. Most seemed to agree that it was a good idea, but disliked some implementation details. I don't think any changed the control fields substantially. There's reference to a previous thread which I've not seen yet. Why isn't it policy yet? Would working Bugs and Origin support make any non-free supporters less worried? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in another thread. It's all process rather than the issue. I'll not reply on-list like this again, but I wanted to put one example in public and hope people draw the correct conclusion about the other threads I ignore. Sorry for wasting time. On 2004-01-06 13:47:18 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not a word game, it's honest ignorance of the fact that you were holding part of your discussion in this forum and part in another. The discussion is not taking place in another forum. It should be fairly easy to discover that I have not run debian infrastructure and I think Anthony knew it already. Then the proper way to respond would be with a reference to that other forum. Other subthreads, not another forum. [...] your claims of hidden meanings. What claims are you talking about? Things like 'You've claimed that non-free, as it currently exists hinders debian' or 'your claims that the content you're talking about are on some other forum'. There are many more examples littering this thread. His numbers were to illustrate a point -- a point which you have studiously ignored. [...] I studiously ignored it with a reply disagreeing with his estimates. In other words, his numbers were imprecise, but not inaccurate. not inaccurate? Isn't that accurate? If you think those numbers are accurate, you are beyond reason. [... NM questions ...] How is this relevant to the current thread? In [EMAIL PROTECTED], it was asserted that there's nothing special about DDs over non-DDs. I disagreed and you contradicted me. The questions were an attempt to understand why. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where not even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...] The discussion on -legal about this starts with http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00076.html There seemed to be a few not sure comments along the way. It may be worth asking -legal again, including whether it is possible to package the non-softlib part in contrib? Other interesting things would be trying to find someone who can produce a free software alternative (reverse engineering perhaps?), and what [EMAIL PROTECTED] has to say about this case and whether any of it can be free software. Anyway, i as debian devel want to be free to use the debian infrastructure to distribute this driver, and the use of the BTS to communicate with my users, which find the the package usefull, even if it is not in main. Why do you want to use debian mirrors and BTS? If there is good support for using another donated infrastructure, would that suffice? So, the aim of this whole discussion is about what kind of work can be done inside of debian. These people with their non-free GR, apart from loosing everyone's time, are trying to impose on me what i can work on inside of debian, without even bothering to look at the issues in detail, and answering arguments made against their case. I guess some of the contributors may not even be debian devels. The question is fairly basic, I agree. Why should work which doesn't help to develop a free software operating system be done inside the debian project? Do we already impose on people what can be distributed as part of debian by using the DFSG? I think you are mostly wrong about without even bothering to look at the issues in detail. Many of the participants here (with a range of viewpoints) are active on -legal and look at these sorts of issues frequently. Maybe some of us have missed issues about ceasing non-free support which you should point out, or maybe you consider them with different importance. Finally, you are as capable as any of us to check who is a DD. Why guess? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-06 09:33:51 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, so then, please someone write a nice software ADSL library, so my unicorn ADSL modem driver can go in main. Asking for it is a start, but maybe this should be done more visibly than an email to debian-vote. There may be other things you can do to help this, too. And let's remove all that bunch of non-free documentation that currently is in main. [...] FWIW, I agree. And what was my last example, a yes, lha. I hear there are some free versions of this one around. Do you have a name? I suspect this may be easier to find for someone who can read Japanese. [...] it would be far better to have some plan to phase out non-free software from debian than to remove non-free. (It is not part of debian, we were told in the past. Opponents of the suggested GR seem to forget that and talk of things like removing from debian, or phasing out from debian.) What's your suggested plan for how to make your suggestions happen? You use non-free, so you're better placed to tell us what is acceptable. As seen elsewhere, if a non-user suggests things, we get rebuffed. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But our non-free includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he calls semi-free software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here. There is no reason for the FDL-related debate what is software? to appear in this thread. Please do not continue with it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal if there were reasonable expectation of these not falling between the cracks. Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian, especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type packages to use. What else could be useful here? Should clause 1's non-free terms be recast as non-debian and pledge support for interoperability? [...] Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair. As someone has said, asking those who agre with its use, and who do the work of packaging the software, to support its removal is equally unfair. As far as I have noticed, no-one has explicitly asked the minority who package for non-free to support the GR, unless they are involved in the infrastructure. Maybe they should, as there seem to be 120 or so of them, which is about 12% if the about a thousand on http://www.debian.org/intro/about is accurate. 8 of those only package for non-free, which I find curious. I didn't count how many only have things in non-free as a related work of something of theirs in main yet. Maybe someone with non-free on their machines can obtain these numbers more easily. Interesting question: should only GRs that expect unanimity be proposed? I think that would be very limiting. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either, He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including measurements. You have elected to provide none of those things -- and to focus purely on the measurement aspect of the question. This accusation seems odd to me. Regardless, I thought the answer to the first questions was both obvious and public knowledge. For the record: I have run BTS and archives for projects of my employers only; I have not run any of the debian infrastructure. The questioner clearly knew the last part of that already and I think that was why the question was asked. I considered the last question (Anything beyond a sincere wish [...]) not possible to answer beyond what was written in other messages, without sparking a long semi-OT thread. But the fundamental points here are: (Always a nice way to avoid the other questions.) You've claimed that non-free, as it currently exists hinders debian, but most of your claims seem to be based on false ideas about why things are in non free, and what people spend their time on. What have you been reading? On this list, I said what my current opinion is and why (I am puzzled why you quote hinders debian.) I think I've never claimed to know all the reasons for DDs wanting to put things in non-free. Indeed, if you can give any evidence for my (unstated AFAICT) ideas being false, I'd love to read it and reconsider those ideas. If you have compelling reasons to keep non-free, or even some more insights, please post them. Anthony has claimed that stripping non-free out of debian would likely result in duplicated effort [and, thus, less productive time available for debian]. He's offered his own experience maintaining BTS and so on as his reason for thinking this. Anthony is probably one of the best qualified to show or describe interesting data about this, yet has preferred to make things up. That vexes me. There is the n-m process. I think that DDs have to know something to get through it, as well as spend the time sitting through it. But drive (motivation and persisntence) has a lot more to do with it than knowledge. Do you think that n-m is too easy and allows through people who do not agree with the philosophy, procedures, tasks and skills? It should not surprise anyone that apparently fictional numbers support the arguments. Ok, here's some numbers for the other side of the argument: Making up silly numbers is no use to anyone! That was the point I was trying to make. Of course one finds silly numbers that don't agree with a prior belief less convincing than ones that do. If anyone has more ideas about how to collect interesting data, please share them. No. I say let the bazaar decide. You mean, instead of voting on it? No. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's unreasonable to ask people who disagree with the infrastructure to set it up. How is that more unreasonable than asking people who agree with the infrastructure to dismantle it? Possibly only marginally, because it is asked for after the decision, rather than before. It looks like it is less work than the creation request, too, and has possible benefits for non-DDs. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But our non-free includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he calls semi-free software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here. There is no reason for the FDL-related debate what is software? to appear in this thread. Please do not continue with it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal if there were reasonable expectation of these not falling between the cracks. Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian, especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type packages to use. What else could be useful here? Should clause 1's non-free terms be recast as non-debian and pledge support for interoperability? [...] Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair. As someone has said, asking those who agre with its use, and who do the work of packaging the software, to support its removal is equally unfair. As far as I have noticed, no-one has explicitly asked the minority who package for non-free to support the GR, unless they are involved in the infrastructure. Maybe they should, as there seem to be 120 or so of them, which is about 12% if the about a thousand on http://www.debian.org/intro/about is accurate. 8 of those only package for non-free, which I find curious. I didn't count how many only have things in non-free as a related work of something of theirs in main yet. Maybe someone with non-free on their machines can obtain these numbers more easily. Interesting question: should only GRs that expect unanimity be proposed? I think that would be very limiting. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is less appealing by the moment. Here is the you don't use these non-free packages, so you should not suggest replacements problem that I feared. According to that reasoning, most supporters of dropping non-free support cannot suggest main replacements of non-free packages. Given that, I think that any such request borders on flamebait and users of non-free should suggest the main replacements themselves. For example: Manoj, what are the nearest equivalents of those two? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either, He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including measurements. You have elected to provide none of those things -- and to focus purely on the measurement aspect of the question. This accusation seems odd to me. Regardless, I thought the answer to the first questions was both obvious and public knowledge. For the record: I have run BTS and archives for projects of my employers only; I have not run any of the debian infrastructure. The questioner clearly knew the last part of that already and I think that was why the question was asked. I considered the last question (Anything beyond a sincere wish [...]) not possible to answer beyond what was written in other messages, without sparking a long semi-OT thread. But the fundamental points here are: (Always a nice way to avoid the other questions.) You've claimed that non-free, as it currently exists hinders debian, but most of your claims seem to be based on false ideas about why things are in non free, and what people spend their time on. What have you been reading? On this list, I said what my current opinion is and why (I am puzzled why you quote hinders debian.) I think I've never claimed to know all the reasons for DDs wanting to put things in non-free. Indeed, if you can give any evidence for my (unstated AFAICT) ideas being false, I'd love to read it and reconsider those ideas. If you have compelling reasons to keep non-free, or even some more insights, please post them. Anthony has claimed that stripping non-free out of debian would likely result in duplicated effort [and, thus, less productive time available for debian]. He's offered his own experience maintaining BTS and so on as his reason for thinking this. Anthony is probably one of the best qualified to show or describe interesting data about this, yet has preferred to make things up. That vexes me. There is the n-m process. I think that DDs have to know something to get through it, as well as spend the time sitting through it. But drive (motivation and persisntence) has a lot more to do with it than knowledge. Do you think that n-m is too easy and allows through people who do not agree with the philosophy, procedures, tasks and skills? It should not surprise anyone that apparently fictional numbers support the arguments. Ok, here's some numbers for the other side of the argument: Making up silly numbers is no use to anyone! That was the point I was trying to make. Of course one finds silly numbers that don't agree with a prior belief less convincing than ones that do. If anyone has more ideas about how to collect interesting data, please share them. No. I say let the bazaar decide. You mean, instead of voting on it? No. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's unreasonable to ask people who disagree with the infrastructure to set it up. How is that more unreasonable than asking people who agree with the infrastructure to dismantle it? Possibly only marginally, because it is asked for after the decision, rather than before. It looks like it is less work than the creation request, too, and has possible benefits for non-DDs. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of our support for free software. [...] none of them would be significantly simpler or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...] I disagree with your choice of significantly. Besides the time, space and consistency improvements, I think it also makes Debian easier to explain. Basically, the issue is why spend 100 man hours on maintaining Debian, then another 90 man hours on maintaining a separate non-free repository, when you can spend 101 man hours maintaining Debian and it's existing support for non-free? Further, I disagree with your time estimates. The time spent on non-free is not directly related to time spent on Debian, either now or in the future. People are already spending time on non-free rather than on Debian and I think it likely that DD time is spent on non-free when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things when you can spend all that on Debian? I also think that there will be benefits of new developers, supporters and collaborators if we let non-free go. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...] This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed from it. Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't benefit free software; Support for non-free already does this, although we disagree about how much. and reducing the available support for our users who need non-free software makes their lives more painful, or encourages them to switch to a different distribution. Or it may encourage them to move to free software, making their lives easier, especially if we provide good migration help as suggested by some current non-free users. [...] One way of demonstrating that the effort is trivial is to setup all that infrastructure. Besides the obvious absurdity, I suspect that some of the suggestors will vote against even if this is done. People who want it should set it up when it is needed. People who disagree with the use of a separate non-free repository surely wouldn't be arguing for its creation, though, no? Yes, apparently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are actually complete enough, however, or stable enough. Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial is not the same as being non-free.) [Tomcat problems blamed on apache2] So the problems mostly stemmed from a package in main. Seems unlikely, as the rest worked apart from the Tomcat parts, but possible. I don't have all the details on it, as I admitted from the start. [...] You assume I don't want to help, which is a pretty crass and unfitting assumption to make, particularly since I've been reading and posting here and there to this thread. Sorry, your mind-reading seems not to work on me. I made no such assumption. Please do not be offended by things that did not happen. Whereas you just charged into battle, quite literally, with no armor, with your (to my mind) somewhat accusatory post. I think you should reconsider using quite literally there. That is just your (IMO inaccurate) metaphor, not reality. I just didn't want to poke you without good reason. No subscriber here may poke me. I'm not that sort of man. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To summarise: i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm not To summarise: I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make it a pain in the arse for everyone who wants to post disagreeing with me. and learn to mind your own business when it comes to other people's systems. I wonder whether you think only maintainers of non-free packages and the infrastructure should be allowed to vote on this. Fact is, people who want non-free stuff (and DFSG-free too) already hunt in the contributed apt sources that you call random collections of variable-quality junk. Personally, I'd like to see us deal with non-Debian collections better, rather than insulting them, but that's another issue. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing needs to be changed? No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing removing non-free from Debian when the proposal is to cease active support and related things. I think that's a needed change which you oppose, so you try to discuss something else. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree with your choice of significantly. That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that would back up any opinion you might have on this? Any repeatable measurements? Anything beyond a sincere wish that it's true? I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either, despite your experience. You seem to be plucking numbers from the air. You are in a better position than me to have some interesting numbers, so why not give all of them and put your commentary afterwards, instead of making some up? Even indicating how to get the interesting numbers would be a great use of your experience. Uh, there's nothing special about DDs compared to non-DDs. All it takes is sitting through the n-m process, and given things like sponsorship, it doesn't necessarily even take that. [...] There is the n-m process. I think that DDs have to know something to get through it, as well as spend the time sitting through it. I mean, sure, you might go from 99% of Debian development being on free software to 100%, but if that's 100% of 50 man hours rather than 99% of 100 man hours, that's a loss. It should not surprise anyone that apparently fictional numbers support the arguments. And if you're assuming that non-free is still important enough to Debian users that someone will maintain infrastructure for it [...] No. I say let the bazaar decide. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this, or why people who aren't willing to try setting up some replacement infrastructure are nevertheless dismissive of how much effort that is. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's unreasonable to ask people who disagree with the infrastructure to set it up. I also think that there will be benefits of new developers, supporters and collaborators if we let non-free go. *shrug* I think you're dreaming. That's your perogative, but in the absence of any data, they're both idle guesses. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are actually complete enough, however, or stable enough. Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial is not the same as being non-free.) [Tomcat problems blamed on apache2] So the problems mostly stemmed from a package in main. Seems unlikely, as the rest worked apart from the Tomcat parts, but possible. I don't have all the details on it, as I admitted from the start. [...] You assume I don't want to help, which is a pretty crass and unfitting assumption to make, particularly since I've been reading and posting here and there to this thread. Sorry, your mind-reading seems not to work on me. I made no such assumption. Please do not be offended by things that did not happen. Whereas you just charged into battle, quite literally, with no armor, with your (to my mind) somewhat accusatory post. I think you should reconsider using quite literally there. That is just your (IMO inaccurate) metaphor, not reality. I just didn't want to poke you without good reason. No subscriber here may poke me. I'm not that sort of man. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of our support for free software. [...] none of them would be significantly simpler or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...] I disagree with your choice of significantly. Besides the time, space and consistency improvements, I think it also makes Debian easier to explain. Basically, the issue is why spend 100 man hours on maintaining Debian, then another 90 man hours on maintaining a separate non-free repository, when you can spend 101 man hours maintaining Debian and it's existing support for non-free? Further, I disagree with your time estimates. The time spent on non-free is not directly related to time spent on Debian, either now or in the future. People are already spending time on non-free rather than on Debian and I think it likely that DD time is spent on non-free when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things when you can spend all that on Debian? I also think that there will be benefits of new developers, supporters and collaborators if we let non-free go. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To summarise: i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm not To summarise: I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make it a pain in the arse for everyone who wants to post disagreeing with me. and learn to mind your own business when it comes to other people's systems. I wonder whether you think only maintainers of non-free packages and the infrastructure should be allowed to vote on this. Fact is, people who want non-free stuff (and DFSG-free too) already hunt in the contributed apt sources that you call random collections of variable-quality junk. Personally, I'd like to see us deal with non-Debian collections better, rather than insulting them, but that's another issue. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...] This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed from it. Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't benefit free software; Support for non-free already does this, although we disagree about how much. and reducing the available support for our users who need non-free software makes their lives more painful, or encourages them to switch to a different distribution. Or it may encourage them to move to free software, making their lives easier, especially if we provide good migration help as suggested by some current non-free users. [...] One way of demonstrating that the effort is trivial is to setup all that infrastructure. Besides the obvious absurdity, I suspect that some of the suggestors will vote against even if this is done. People who want it should set it up when it is needed. People who disagree with the use of a separate non-free repository surely wouldn't be arguing for its creation, though, no? Yes, apparently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I disagree with your choice of significantly. That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that would back up any opinion you might have on this? Any repeatable measurements? Anything beyond a sincere wish that it's true? I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either, despite your experience. You seem to be plucking numbers from the air. You are in a better position than me to have some interesting numbers, so why not give all of them and put your commentary afterwards, instead of making some up? Even indicating how to get the interesting numbers would be a great use of your experience. Uh, there's nothing special about DDs compared to non-DDs. All it takes is sitting through the n-m process, and given things like sponsorship, it doesn't necessarily even take that. [...] There is the n-m process. I think that DDs have to know something to get through it, as well as spend the time sitting through it. I mean, sure, you might go from 99% of Debian development being on free software to 100%, but if that's 100% of 50 man hours rather than 99% of 100 man hours, that's a loss. It should not surprise anyone that apparently fictional numbers support the arguments. And if you're assuming that non-free is still important enough to Debian users that someone will maintain infrastructure for it [...] No. I say let the bazaar decide. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this, or why people who aren't willing to try setting up some replacement infrastructure are nevertheless dismissive of how much effort that is. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's unreasonable to ask people who disagree with the infrastructure to set it up. I also think that there will be benefits of new developers, supporters and collaborators if we let non-free go. *shrug* I think you're dreaming. That's your perogative, but in the absence of any data, they're both idle guesses. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing needs to be changed? No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing removing non-free from Debian when the proposal is to cease active support and related things. I think that's a needed change which you oppose, so you try to discuss something else. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract, but I do not like your drop it on the floor approach to this issue. Why does the presence of that alter the success of the proposal? Surely, if the proposal passes, those who want the infrastructure will create it, if it is needed/important enough? Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would mean losing much of the current Java support. I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now. Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in main? I have heard that the contrib Tomcat is a particular irritation to some users. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're not willing to solve their problems. Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support non-free helping to prevent the problems from being solved? Already, someone has mentioned some Java packages that I think could be in Debian but aren't. Is that because contrib is an easy enough home for them? If so, then removing non-free and contrib from our infrastructure would probably encourage them into Debian, solving one problem. I have two problems with this message. Firstly, I can't understand the repeated request that people who disagree with the use of non-free software do things to support it. It is clearly harder to solve problems we don't (can't? won't?) experience: why don't the people who care want to do this work? Are they giving an unnecessary and difficult precondition? Secondly, I read this whole message, but didn't see a direct hook to a particular vote. Wouldn't it be better on -project or another more general list? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social infrastructures behind Debian non-free can be currently duplicated somewhere else. Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about evidence, somehow seems a little weak for such a basic point. Even so, I am not so unreasonable as to ask for proof. You surely know that we cannot realistically have proof to most of these questions because we try not to invade our users' privacy. This may be true from a lawyer's point of view. And that's fine with me. For practical purposes, the close association of Debian an the non-free non-Debian part is good enough. This is worrying and I think it a good justification to support the GR. I fail to see how my pleading against the removal of a non-free section (which I feel childish) goes against the goal of creating a Free Operating System (TM). Hopefully, it is obvious that the presence of things in non-free which have no analogue in main reduce the demand for a free software to do the same thing. It is unknown how much that reduction is and whether it is significant. Any judgement on that will be subjective. That said, I do like having some data, especially if it may convince some floating voters to decide instead of abstaining or voting for further discussion. I think I agree with the questions posed later: a) How do you (did you ?) measure this low percentage ? b) The proposition is not about *evaluating* such a move. It is about *doing* the move, and postulates that the evaluation has been done and showed that the non-free section has no longer practical uses or enough (definition ?) users to bother. Can we use the popularity contest system to get some numbers? Has there ever been a straw poll of users? I suggest that simple download figures will probably overestimate non-free's importance, because of the CD distributors, but can we get some as an upper bound? Returning to order: Someone else in the list (sorry, I can't recall who and when) seems to share my concerns, and pointed out that further revisions of the Debian fundamental texts might restrict more and more the set of admissible software in Debian. That is partly the point that frightens me ... Are you referring to the eating disorder post? It frightens me more that anyone would send such a message to a public mailing list. That message seemed groundless, irrelevant and bordering on the offensive. I'm not frightened that you regard non-free as in Debian but still troubled by it. Nothing in this proposal seems to change what is in Debian. Arguing about that is a diversion. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free? You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it seems your messages confused me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-02 20:08:33 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you talking about http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg1.html? Dunno. I'm not at my connected machine when writing this. If it is the list of Java packages, then yes. Your 2:36PM followup to that message didn't really give any specifics about why you thought some of those packages could go into main. When I last asked, the problem was not having a java in main. I think that problem has gone away, so I wonder why they are still there. It's not directly relevant to -vote now. Please reply off-list or elsewhere. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 20:44:51 + Ava Arachne Jarvis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need to be more specific before what you say here has any weight. some Java systems? Do you even know what these are, or whether they even support Java well enough to deal with Tomcat or ant or any other serious, recent java application? I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I do not know if ant runs on them, because all ant distributions that I have seen seem to be set up to want the Sun JDK, including the one in contrib. I do not know ant well enough to change that and I have insufficient time and motive to learn about ant just now. It would be wonderful if someone who does know ant can enumerate the problems and make them available to the people who know those implementations. Surely getting ant into Debian matters to someone capable of that? I have heard that blah is a particular irritation, without any particular reasons, other than it's irritating? Is it irritating because it doesn't work, or because it's in contrib, or because of how the dependencies are set up, or what? Basically, it seemed very difficult for them to install on a stock Debian system. I speculate that this is because contrib is not as well-integrated or -tested as main. I think it gives a very bad impression to users to present such software on Debian mirrors. Charging into battle without adequate armor isn't a good idea. :) Battle metaphors are not helpful to this discussion. Please try to collaborate if you wish to help. If not, just state your complaint. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the social contract, but I do not like your drop it on the floor approach to this issue. Why does the presence of that alter the success of the proposal? Surely, if the proposal passes, those who want the infrastructure will create it, if it is needed/important enough? Asking those who disagree with its use to create it seems unfair. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're not willing to solve their problems. Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support non-free helping to prevent the problems from being solved? Already, someone has mentioned some Java packages that I think could be in Debian but aren't. Is that because contrib is an easy enough home for them? If so, then removing non-free and contrib from our infrastructure would probably encourage them into Debian, solving one problem. I have two problems with this message. Firstly, I can't understand the repeated request that people who disagree with the use of non-free software do things to support it. It is clearly harder to solve problems we don't (can't? won't?) experience: why don't the people who care want to do this work? Are they giving an unnecessary and difficult precondition? Secondly, I read this whole message, but didn't see a direct hook to a particular vote. Wouldn't it be better on -project or another more general list? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would mean losing much of the current Java support. I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now. Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in main? I have heard that the contrib Tomcat is a particular irritation to some users. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social infrastructures behind Debian non-free can be currently duplicated somewhere else. Debian did it. Why do you consider it impossible that someone else can duplicate that? Given what you said elsewhere about evidence, somehow seems a little weak for such a basic point. Even so, I am not so unreasonable as to ask for proof. You surely know that we cannot realistically have proof to most of these questions because we try not to invade our users' privacy. This may be true from a lawyer's point of view. And that's fine with me. For practical purposes, the close association of Debian an the non-free non-Debian part is good enough. This is worrying and I think it a good justification to support the GR. I fail to see how my pleading against the removal of a non-free section (which I feel childish) goes against the goal of creating a Free Operating System (TM). Hopefully, it is obvious that the presence of things in non-free which have no analogue in main reduce the demand for a free software to do the same thing. It is unknown how much that reduction is and whether it is significant. Any judgement on that will be subjective. That said, I do like having some data, especially if it may convince some floating voters to decide instead of abstaining or voting for further discussion. I think I agree with the questions posed later: a) How do you (did you ?) measure this low percentage ? b) The proposition is not about *evaluating* such a move. It is about *doing* the move, and postulates that the evaluation has been done and showed that the non-free section has no longer practical uses or enough (definition ?) users to bother. Can we use the popularity contest system to get some numbers? Has there ever been a straw poll of users? I suggest that simple download figures will probably overestimate non-free's importance, because of the CD distributors, but can we get some as an upper bound? Returning to order: Someone else in the list (sorry, I can't recall who and when) seems to share my concerns, and pointed out that further revisions of the Debian fundamental texts might restrict more and more the set of admissible software in Debian. That is partly the point that frightens me ... Are you referring to the eating disorder post? It frightens me more that anyone would send such a message to a public mailing list. That message seemed groundless, irrelevant and bordering on the offensive. I'm not frightened that you regard non-free as in Debian but still troubled by it. Nothing in this proposal seems to change what is in Debian. Arguing about that is a diversion. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free? You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before it is passed. If that is incorrect, sorry but then it seems your messages confused me.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On 2004-01-02 20:08:33 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you talking about http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg1.html? Dunno. I'm not at my connected machine when writing this. If it is the list of Java packages, then yes. Your 2:36PM followup to that message didn't really give any specifics about why you thought some of those packages could go into main. When I last asked, the problem was not having a java in main. I think that problem has gone away, so I wonder why they are still there. It's not directly relevant to -vote now. Please reply off-list or elsewhere. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-02 20:44:51 + Ava Arachne Jarvis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need to be more specific before what you say here has any weight. some Java systems? Do you even know what these are, or whether they even support Java well enough to deal with Tomcat or ant or any other serious, recent java application? I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I do not know if ant runs on them, because all ant distributions that I have seen seem to be set up to want the Sun JDK, including the one in contrib. I do not know ant well enough to change that and I have insufficient time and motive to learn about ant just now. It would be wonderful if someone who does know ant can enumerate the problems and make them available to the people who know those implementations. Surely getting ant into Debian matters to someone capable of that? I have heard that blah is a particular irritation, without any particular reasons, other than it's irritating? Is it irritating because it doesn't work, or because it's in contrib, or because of how the dependencies are set up, or what? Basically, it seemed very difficult for them to install on a stock Debian system. I speculate that this is because contrib is not as well-integrated or -tested as main. I think it gives a very bad impression to users to present such software on Debian mirrors. Charging into battle without adequate armor isn't a good idea. :) Battle metaphors are not helpful to this discussion. Please try to collaborate if you wish to help. If not, just state your complaint. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it should be. Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. vs DFSG 6 perhaps? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it should be. Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. vs DFSG 6 perhaps? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a hypothetical if I were... to give Branden something to think about. (For off-line readers, that message concludes with a rewrite of the SC.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On 2003-11-09 03:56:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatively, maybe people could second the draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: Why second something that was not proposed? It seems to be a hypothetical if I were... to give Branden something to think about. (For off-line readers, that message concludes with a rewrite of the SC.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On 2003-10-31 06:17:28 + Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Further clean up the software|work conflation, and replace 'run' with 'use' or 'be used' and software with 'works' and/or 'software and other works' Using software and other works either has redundancy or apparently endorses the false assertion that software = programs. I suggest using works if we must change. 3) Commercial replaced with non-free, and deriviations allowed broadened. This seems a more substantive change than 2 and 4. What motivates it? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned understanding of the term software, empirical evidence seems to indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this Maybe you should write all works in Debian rather than software and other works. The Debian distribution is necessarily all software, in my opinion, as you know. Please break this amendment up. Please see my reply to Bas Zoetekouw for why I don't want to do this. I think other people have replied on this. Further, if you create orthogonal amendments, they could run as separate votes, unless I missed something. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned understanding of the term software, empirical evidence seems to indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this Maybe you should write all works in Debian rather than software and other works. The Debian distribution is necessarily all software, in my opinion, as you know. Please break this amendment up. Please see my reply to Bas Zoetekouw for why I don't want to do this. I think other people have replied on this. Further, if you create orthogonal amendments, they could run as separate votes, unless I missed something. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation (rationale point 2) and most of the editorial changes, but violently disagree with changing the use of software from its true meaning to something apparently meaning programs (rationale point 4). Please break this amendment up. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation (rationale point 2) and most of the editorial changes, but violently disagree with changing the use of software from its true meaning to something apparently meaning programs (rationale point 4). Please break this amendment up. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The destruction of good English teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in 1967. Sir, I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in England and poor English language instruction wholly absurd. The two phenomena are correlated, but are obviously linked by time. The 1970s saw popularity of a number of alternative English teaching practices, which did not teach grammar explicitly, but also had other defects (such as not correcting spelling). However, I know that some schools continued to teach English in a more traditional manner until the introduction of the National Curriculum. It is possible that some managed to continue beyond that, but I do not know them. I cannot see why you think comprehensive schooling caused so-called trendy teaching. As further evidence, attainment statistics reportedly show a broadly similar change over the same period of time across both selective and comprehensive areas. From anecdotal reports, the same teaching methods seem to have been used in selective schools. I apologise that this is now heading off-topic for the list. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
