(last minute) Question to both candidates: CRA+PLD, similar regulations, and Debian
Dear DPL candidates, As you may be aware, the EU has adopted a new cybersecurity regulation [CRA] and other countries are following the example. You may also be aware that Debian issued a public statement about it (based on a previous draft version of the regulation) last year. CRA will have an impact on commercial Debian downstreams, specifically on all of those who are placing a Debian-inside product in the EU single market. Part of the requirements rely on data that should be found in every single package integrated by the commercial downstream. And, as of today, part of that data is non existing. E.g.: include (meta)data about the support status upstream (supported, non-supported version, EOS date, ..., required for Article 13 (11)). Also manufacturers are required to "apply effective and regular tests and reviews of the security of the product with digital elements" (Annex I pII (3)). Non-commercial FLOSS products/projects do not have to comply with CRA. However, I think there could be an impact in the industry regarding the adoption and use of Debian. What are you thoughts on the subject? Should Debian help those commercial downstreams to fulfill the requirements? [CRA] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0130_EN.html Thanks for running for DPL to both of you! -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: CRA and PLD vote status
El 08/12/23 a las 21:37, Ilu escribió: > Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery: > > Ilu writes: > > > > > CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental > > > to FOSS > > > > How about: > > > > CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS > > > > This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine > by me. I've pinged Santiago. I fully trust Russ's English skills :-) LGTM. Thank you! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL
El 02/12/23 a las 01:07, Bill Allombert escribió: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > > > > votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing > > > > political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a > > > > GR. > > > > > > The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better > > > for > > > the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else. > > > > > > We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers > > > opinions on > > > issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is > > > easier to > > > work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement. Yet, one of the goals of the proposed text is to minimize the negative impact of this particular EU policy on FLOSS projects and the related technical work. > > Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in > > nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least > > aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political > > statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact). +1! > > One major risk for Debian continued existence is that we start to become > suspicious of each other political views outside FLOSS, that we start to see > "collaborating with someone as part of our Debian activity" as "associating" > with them, and that "associating" with them start to become socially > problematic. There is a precedent for that. On the other hand, I have experience successfully working in a professional level with people that I would place in the other side of the one-dimensional political spectrum. > That is why I am quite against the whole 'community' view of Debian. We are a large community, and it is obvious we disagree at different points, political and technical. And that doesn't prevent us to keep working together, with obvious obstacles and etc. But that is still part of the "working together". This is not saying we have to think in the same way, of course. The only common ground is that we all agreed (at least "new" new members) to uphold the Social Contract (which, as its name state, **social**) the DFSG, et al. > In practice, it is very hard to participate in such GR without revealing > political views, as you can see by reading the discussion. > > > > And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing > > > such > > > opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads > > > to more fracturation of the project. > > > > > > But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is > > > about > > > issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, > > > are > > > GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to > > > draft > > > political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering > > > Debian > > > goal ? > > > > I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be > > put to the table. > > It seems like you are underestimating the risks and overestimating the > rewards. > Such statement is only useful if written by people that understand enough of > EU law terminology to address the issue. I asked whether the lawyer that > drafted > it was familiar with EU law and it does not seem to be the case. What makes you state this? As far as I case, the lawyer who drafted the statement knows well the EU regulations and legislation proceedings. > We should not make a statement that can be used against us. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
More additional changes (was: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive")
, -greatly increasing the risk of leaking information about vulnerabilities +administrations would collect all software vulnerabilities in one place. +This greatly increases the risk of leaking information about vulnerabilities to threat actors, representing a threat for all the users around the world, including European citizens. @@ -106,12 +106,5 @@ PLD proposals and links: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-new-product-liability-directive -(2) Background information: -https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2023/01/24/tdf-position-on-eus-proposed-cyber-resilience-act/ -https://blogs.eclipse.org/post/mike-milinkovich/european-cyber-resilience-act-potential-impact-eclipse-foundation -https://labs.ripe.net/author/maarten-aertsen/open-source-software-vs-the-proposed-cyber-resilience-act/ -https://blog.opensource.org/author/webmink/ -Detailed analysis: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13410-Cyber-resilience-act-new-cybersecurity-rules-for-digital-products-and-ancillary-services/F3376542_en - -(3) Debian Social Contract No. 2, 3 and 4 +(2) Debian Social Contract No. 2, 3 and 4 https://www.debian.org/social_contract Thank you all, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Amendment to the original proposal (was: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive")
ne-tuned, well -working system of responsible disclosure in case of security issues -which will be overturned by the mandatory reporting to European +a. The Free Software community has developed a fine-tuned, +tried-and-tested system of responsible disclosure in case of security +issues which will be overturned by the mandatory reporting to European authorities within 24 hours (Art. 11 CRA). b. Debian spends a lot of volunteering time on security issues, @@ -80,7 +81,7 @@ 3. While proprietary software is developed behind closed doors, Free Software development is done in the open, transparent for everyone. To -keep even with proprietary software the open development process needs +retain parity with proprietary software the open development process needs to be entirely exempt from CRA requirements, just as the development of software in private is. A "making available on the market" can only be considered after development is finished and the software is released. @@ -89,9 +90,9 @@ Free Software community - and as a consequence, everybody - will lose a lot of small projects. CRA will force many small enterprises and most probably all self employed developers out of business because they -simply cannot fullfill the requirements imposed by CRA. Debian and other -Linux distributions depend on their work. It is not understandable why -the EU aims to cripple not only an established community but also a +simply cannot fulfill the requirements imposed by CRA. Debian and other +Linux distributions depend on their work. If accepted as it is, +CRA will undermine not only an established community but also a thriving market. CRA needs an exemption for small businesses and, at the very least, solo-entrepreneurs. @@ -101,7 +102,7 @@ Sources: (1) CRA proposals and links: -https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-proposal-for-cybersecurity-regulation +https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-european-cyber-resilience-act PLD proposals and links: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-new-product-liability-directive @@ -110,8 +111,7 @@ https://blogs.eclipse.org/post/mike-milinkovich/european-cyber-resilience-act-potential-impact-eclipse-foundation https://labs.ripe.net/author/maarten-aertsen/open-source-software-vs-the-proposed-cyber-resilience-act/ https://blog.opensource.org/author/webmink/ -Detailed -analysis: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13410-Cyber-resilience-act-new-cybersecurity-rules-for-digital-products-and-ancillary-services/F3376542_en +Detailed analysis: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13410-Cyber-resilience-act-new-cybersecurity-rules-for-digital-products-and-ancillary-services/F3376542_en (3) Debian Social Contract No. 2, 3 and 4 https://www.debian.org/social_contract Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Thanks to those who have spotted errors and have proposed fixes! I am collecting more patches, and I will send an updated proposal as soon as possible. But I won't be able to do it earlier than tomorrow Wednesday, when I will be in the Northern hemisphere. El 21/11/23 a las 12:01, Miriam Ruiz escribió: > s/Discoverded/Discovered/ > s/fullfill/fulfill/ > > El dom, 19 nov 2023 a las 22:53, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt > Roeckx () escribió: > > > > A General Resolution has been started about a statement > > about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability > > Directive" > > > > More information can be found at: > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 > > > > > > Kurt Roeckx > > Debian Project Secretary > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
El 20/11/23 a las 08:53, Kurt Roeckx escribió: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 12:40:58AM +0100, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > > I second adding this version to the vote > > I'm getting a bad signature on this. > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 00:22, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at > > this point: > > Maybe Santiago wants to adopt this text, rather than having 2 options? The initial proposal was made collectively, and now I realise I should have signed with a "On behalf of the Debian fellows in Montevideo". So it is not only me to decide. Anyway, IMHO, it is good to have more than one option. Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
El 15/11/23 a las 00:49, Luca Boccassi escribió: > On Sun, 2023-11-12 at 12:10 -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > Dear Debian Fellows, > > > > Following the email sent by Ilu to debian-project (Message-ID: > > <4b93ed08-f148-4c7f-b172-f967f7de7...@gmx.net>), and as we have > > discussed during the MiniDebConf UY 2023 with other Debian Members, I > > would like to call for a vote about issuing a Debian public statement > > regarding > > the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the Product Liability Directive > > (PLD). The CRA is in the final stage in the legislative process in the > > EU Parliament, and we think it will impact negatively the Debian > > Project, users, developers, companies that rely on Debian, and the FLOSS > > community as a whole. Even if the CRA will be probably adopted before > > the time the vote ends (if it takes place), we think it is important to > > take a public stand about it. > > Hi Santiago, Hello Luca > > It seems clear that there is a lot of interest in the project to > express a position on this matter. But as mentioned in the thread by > myself and others, I find some of the specifics of the text a bit > problematic - and some of the responses it elicited even more so. > > So, I'd like to propose an alternative text, that uses a very similar > preamble and still expresses a strong request to the legislators to > protect the interests of FOSS and its contributors and clarify any > issue, grey area or confusion that might be present in the current > texts, and put it beyond any reasonable doubt that FOSS projects can > continue working as they have, while at the same time supporting the > spirit of the law and its goal to improve the abysmal landscape of > software security in commercial products. > > What do you think? Here's what I came up with: > > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act and the > Product Liability Directive > > The European Union is currently preparing a regulation "on horizontal > cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements" known as > the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). It's currently in the final "trilogue" > phase of the legislative process. The act includes a set of essential > cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for manufacturers. > It will require products to be accompanied by information and > instructions to the user. Manufacturers will need to perform risk > assessments and produce technical documentation and for critical > components, have third-party audits conducted. Security issues under > active exploitation will have to be reported to European authorities > within 24 hours (1). The CRA will be followed up by an update to the > existing Product Liability Directive (PLD) which, among other things, > will introduce the requirement for products on the market using software > to be able to receive updates to address security vulnerabilities. > > Given the current state of the electronics and computing devices market, > constellated with too many irresponsible vendors (largely employing > proprietary software) not taking taking enough precautions to ensure and > maintain the security of their products, resulting in grave issues such > as the plague of ransomware (that, among other things, has often caused > public services to be severely hampered or shut down entirely, across > the European Union and beyond, to the detriment of its citizens), the > Debian project welcomes this initiative and supports its spirit and > intent. I don't feel comfortable with most of the above paragraph. Where is the value in kind-of-finger-pointing proprietary software? > The Debian project believes Free and Open Source Software Projects to be > very well positioned to respond to modern challenges around security and > accountability that these regulations aim to improve for products > commercialized on the Single Market. Debian is well known for its > security track record through practices of responsible disclosure and > coordination with upstream developers and other Free and Open Source > Software projects. The project aims to live up to the commitment made in > the Debian Social Contract: "We will not hide problems." (2) > > The Debian project welcomes the attempt of the legislators to ensure > that the development of Free and Open Source Software is not negatively > affected by these regulations, as clearly expressed by the European > Commission in response to stakeholders' req
Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
h derivatives such as Tails), among other reasons, to protect themselves from authoritarian governments; handing threat actors exploits they can use for oppression is against what Debian stands for. e. Developers and companies will downplay security issues because a "security" issue now comes with legal implications. Less clarity on what is truly a security issue will hurt users by leaving them vulnerable. 3. While proprietary software is developed behind closed doors, Free Software development is done in the open, transparent for everyone. To keep even with proprietary software the open development process needs to be entirely exempt from CRA requirements, just as the development of software in private is. A "making available on the market" can only be considered after development is finished and the software is released. 4. Even if only "commercial activities" are in the scope of CRA, the Free Software community - and as a consequence, everybody - will lose a lot of small projects. CRA will force many small enterprises and most probably all self employed developers out of business because they simply cannot fullfill the requirements imposed by CRA. Debian and other Linux distributions depend on their work. It is not understandable why the EU aims to cripple not only an established community but also a thriving market. CRA needs an exemption for small businesses and, at the very least, solo-entrepreneurs. == Sources: (1) CRA proposals and links: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-proposal-for-cybersecurity-regulation PLD proposals and links: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-new-product-liability-directive (2) Background information: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2023/01/24/tdf-position-on-eus-proposed-cyber-resilience-act/ https://blogs.eclipse.org/post/mike-milinkovich/european-cyber-resilience-act-potential-impact-eclipse-foundation https://labs.ripe.net/author/maarten-aertsen/open-source-software-vs-the-proposed-cyber-resilience-act/ https://blog.opensource.org/author/webmink/ Detailed analysis: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13410-Cyber-resilience-act-new-cybersecurity-rules-for-digital-products-and-ancillary-services/F3376542_en (3) Debian Social Contract No. 2, 3 and 4 https://www.debian.org/social_contract - GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS - Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
El 29/08/22 a las 09:06, Simon Josefsson escribió: > Kurt Roeckx writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make > >> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That > >> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following > >> lines. > > > > The key you signed this with (A3CC9C870B9D310ABAD4CF2F51722B08FE4745A2) > > is not in the debian keyring. > > I'm signing this with my debian RSA key. > > /Simon > > == > > We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1 > which says: > >Debian will remain 100% free > >We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is >"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software >Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components >will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people >who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will >never make the system require the use of a non-free component. > > Therefore we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the > main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will > not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default. > > We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5 > which says: > >Works that do not meet our free software standards > >We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that >do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have >created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these >works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, >although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage >CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas >and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, >although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their >use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug >tracking system and mailing lists). > > Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with > non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we > support their use and welcome others to distribute such work. > > == I won't vote for this, but I think it is important to have this option on the ballot. Seconded, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Reaffirm public voting
El 04/03/22 a las 12:03, Mattia Rizzolo escribió: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > Reaffirm public voting > > == > > > > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have > > open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting > > system as it is. > > > > Rationale: > > > > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details, > > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to > > achieve fully, so this GR is bound to a similar fate as the 'publish > > debian-private' vote, which was voted for and then was never implemented. > > > > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and > > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals > > of openness and transparency. > > > > And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which > > is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot, > > and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option. > > > > I'm seeking sponsors for this amendment to the current GR. > > > Assuming you meant this as "this ballot" instead of "this amendment" > (following the new GR flow), I sponsor this. > > I sponsor this ballot. > If I were to add my thoughts: political GRs don't belong in Debian, > please take them elsewhere. For non-political votes there is no use > for private voting. I think technical is political. Giving freedom to software users is political. And I'd rather say we should avoid GRs involving individuals. Cheeers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Announcing new decision making procedures for Debian
El 31/03/21 a las 20:14, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz escribió: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 19:53 Enrico Zini wrote: > > Hello Debian Members, > > > > For some time, we have been having systemic issues that make GR > > discussions painful. GRs themselves shouldn't be painful, and don't need > > to be. Having a chilling effect to using GRs hurts Debian, and as a > > project we need a way to poll for consensus on project choices and > > directions more often than not. > > > > To overcome the current problems with GR discussions, we introduce a > > replacement weighted democratic system. The new procedure is this: > > > > * A developer proposes an issue with a signed message on > >debian-vote@lists.debian.org . > > > > * Anyone can express their consent or dissent by replying to the > >message. > > > > * When the discussion eventually dies down, the Debian Secretary will > >review all messages and pronounce the winner. > > in Kurt we trust. What happens if Kurt also wants to take part in the discussion? Should we decide on who will review the messages and announce the winner of that discussion? Thank you Enrico for this brilliant procedure, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
El 30/03/21 a las 10:25, Milan Kupcevic escribió: > On 3/30/21 10:10 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > > On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: > >>> Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to > >>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > >>> Richard > >>> Stallman has a leading position. > >> Hi Santiago, > >> > >> I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with > >> this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if > >> you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the > >> amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. > >> > >> I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) > >> interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free > >> archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only > >> communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to > >> collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly > >> would the Debian project stop doing? > > > > Good question, we could probably amend that part with: > > > > "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > > collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > > Richard Stallman has a leading position." > > > > > > I would support this amendment. ... For the matter of consistency, this is the full amended amendment: Choice X: Debian encourages working with groups that foster diversity and equality === Begin text === Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the following statement: Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our actions and consider this feedback in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as a board member again, despite no discernible steps were taken by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a wrong and hurtful message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in it in order to fulfil the movement's mission. Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages collaborating both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue looking forward to work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of empowering all users to control technology. [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703 === End text === Zlatan & Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
El 29/03/21 a las 14:51, Santiago R.R. escribió: > Hi, > > This is mostly Sruthi Chandran's proposed amendment, with minor tweaks > and without asking for resignation. I am proposing this because I don't > want Debian tells other organisations what to do (small difference that > for me is important). Forgot to say in my initial mail: this was prepared with Zlatan. Sorry for the noise, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Hi, This is mostly Sruthi Chandran's proposed amendment, with minor tweaks and without asking for resignation. I am proposing this because I don't want Debian tells other organisations what to do (small difference that for me is important). Choice X: Debian is unable to collaborate with FSF === Begin text === Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the following statement: Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our actions and consider this feedback in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as a board member again, despite no discernible steps were taken by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a wrong and hurtful message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in it in order to fulfil the movement's mission. Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of empowering all users to control technology. [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703 === End text === Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
El 26/03/21 a las 13:26, Dominik George escribió: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > [replying only to -vote - please avoid cross-posting!] > > OK, but you actually replied only to -devel instead of -vote. > > > > > Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 11:05:26) ... > > > > > > 8><-- > > > Choice 2 > > > > > > > > > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard > > > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at > > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > > > > > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the > > > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the > > > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to > > > sign the statement, or to not do so. > > > > > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of: > > > > > > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board > > > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms, > > > and we take every single report very serously > > > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of > > > rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and > > > the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with > > > the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses ... AFAIK, the Community Team has replaced the Anti Harassment Team. -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
El 08/07/16 a las 15:27, Margarita Manterola escribió: ... > > I'm therefore proposing the following General Resolution: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. Thanks! Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Good news regarding the economy
Greetings, This is an email to notify you that you have been accepted into our "Lowest_Mortgage_Rate" program. Please visit the following link to complete your application which has been pre-approved. http://loanpoly.com/?partid=wh6 Thank You Tamera Senior Mortgage Consultant to opt out of this program click here...it may take up to 48 hours to complete thank you http://loanpoly.com/st.html
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is > > this > > in non-free? > > This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the > license looks just like the 4-clause BSD. The problem with mocka is that the source is not exactly the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, so we can't really consider that it "includes" source code. Google for "debian mocka license" and you will find an old discussion about this.
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this > > in non-free? > > This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the > license looks just like the 4-clause BSD. The problem with mocka is that the source is not exactly the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it, so we can't really consider that it "includes" source code. Google for "debian mocka license" and you will find an old discussion about this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. Seconded. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE//o/pd9Uuvj7yPNYRAkunAJ0ZKeKSc9FEkzZcUGTk38yCUCeKKQCeJDgM gMWKMNg+DSn94E0thP4XULY= =k/xH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. Seconded. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE//o/pd9Uuvj7yPNYRAkunAJ0ZKeKSc9FEkzZcUGTk38yCUCeKKQCeJDgM gMWKMNg+DSn94E0thP4XULY= =k/xH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: where to submit bugs in constituion
Susan Kleinmann wrote: > I have found a few sentences in the debian constitution· > > http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution > > which seem incomplete or just wrong to me, so I wonder what's the > name of the "package" to which I should submit the bug report. > > Please respond to me as well as the list, since I am not subscribed to > debian-vote. If you want to change the constitution, you can use the procedure explained by the constitution itself: Together, the Developers may: [...] 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. I don't think it would be wise to use any other procedure, being the constitution the important document it is. If the proposed changes are reasonable, clean, and non-controversial, I don't see a reason why you would not obtain the required majority.
Re: where to submit bugs in constituion
Susan Kleinmann wrote: > I have found a few sentences in the debian constitution· > > http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution > > which seem incomplete or just wrong to me, so I wonder what's the > name of the "package" to which I should submit the bug report. > > Please respond to me as well as the list, since I am not subscribed to > debian-vote. If you want to change the constitution, you can use the procedure explained by the constitution itself: Together, the Developers may: [...] 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. I don't think it would be wise to use any other procedure, being the constitution the important document it is. If the proposed changes are reasonable, clean, and non-controversial, I don't see a reason why you would not obtain the required majority. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Santiago> My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a > Santiago> privilege, not a "right". > > I strongly disagree. We are vendors who provide an OS. I know > we do not treat users as customers, but being a debian user is not a > privilege. Of course not, and I never said otherwise. > You treat your users and developers like dirt, telling them > that working on improving debian is a privilege, I never said such thing. I just suggested that we could stop spam completely if we could perform several simple checks to the messages before accepting them. Requiring posts to come from a valid email address could be one of such checks. We already did that in the past, and it's not treating our users like dirt. Requiring posts to have a specific header could be another check. I believe it should be completely trivial for you to do such thing in your particular case. Posts would not be required to pass every check, only one of them. You seem to care very much about one side of the problem and very few about the other side of the problem. What about the spam in the lists? Isn't sending our users (the ones who are subscribed to our lists, I mean) so much spam email treating them like dirt?
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Santiago> Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a > Santiago> problem for you, Manoj. > > I change ISP's several times a month, and, indeed, sometimes > use more than 2 a week. Well, but most people don't do that. Can you configure your mail client so that it adds a custom header, like "X-Debian:"? That would be more than enough to stop spammers, and I believe it would be more than enough as well for people who change ISP as often as you. My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a privilege, not a "right". There may be multiple ways to obtain this privilege. Being subscribed is only one of them, being in the white list may be another one, but I never said that they should be the only possible ways.
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Santiago> Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a > Santiago> problem for you, Manoj. > > I change ISP's several times a month, and, indeed, sometimes > use more than 2 a week. Well, but most people don't do that. Can you configure your mail client so that it adds a custom header, like "X-Debian:"? That would be more than enough to stop spammers, and I believe it would be more than enough as well for people who change ISP as often as you. My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a privilege, not a "right". There may be multiple ways to obtain this privilege. Being subscribed is only one of them, being in the white list may be another one, but I never said that they should be the only possible ways. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and > force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is > never the address I post from). No, you could subscribe the address you post from to the "white list". Smartlist then would check that the From: is subscribed to the list you are posting OR subscribed to the white list before accepting the message. Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a problem for you, Manoj. More to the point: When Bruce was the Project Leader, there was a procedure to validate every email address using cookies. You had only to answer the cookie once for every different From: you want to use. This procedure worked very well, it didn't require any moderators, it was 100% effective against spam, and it was never a big problem for legitimate users.
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and > force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is > never the address I post from). No, you could subscribe the address you post from to the "white list". Smartlist then would check that the From: is subscribed to the list you are posting OR subscribed to the white list before accepting the message. Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a problem for you, Manoj. More to the point: When Bruce was the Project Leader, there was a procedure to validate every email address using cookies. You had only to answer the cookie once for every different From: you want to use. This procedure worked very well, it didn't require any moderators, it was 100% effective against spam, and it was never a big problem for legitimate users. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Enough comments. I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official). Thanks everybody.
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following: > > The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong. > > You can't force anyone to do anything, period. > > If you want something done, do it yourself. Not everything works that way, and you know it. It may be badly worded, but it's not blatantly wrong. Add "provided someone writes a suitable patch" everywhere you see it fits if you don't like the current wording. It would be quite pointless to write patches if the consensus is that they should not be applied.
General Resolution draft against spam.
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me. Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following: To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives: - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past, present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who posted something to any debian list. The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege. We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid debian archives which do not hide addresses. To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers from incoming.debian.org: - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the maintainer, only his name and gpg signature. To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers in general: - The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but no such addresses will be present on web pages. The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege. To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required: - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear. Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable, everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I accept" before subscribing again. To avoid spam in debian lists: - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special white list. No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to /dev/null (so to speak).
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Enough comments. I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official). Thanks everybody. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following: > > The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong. > > You can't force anyone to do anything, period. > > If you want something done, do it yourself. Not everything works that way, and you know it. It may be badly worded, but it's not blatantly wrong. Add "provided someone writes a suitable patch" everywhere you see it fits if you don't like the current wording. It would be quite pointless to write patches if the consensus is that they should not be applied. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Resolution draft against spam.
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me. Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following: To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives: - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past, present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who posted something to any debian list. The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege. We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid debian archives which do not hide addresses. To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers from incoming.debian.org: - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the maintainer, only his name and gpg signature. To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers in general: - The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but no such addresses will be present on web pages. The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege. To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required: - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear. Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable, everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I accept" before subscribing again. To avoid spam in debian lists: - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special white list. No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to /dev/null (so to speak). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Nevertheless, if elected DPL, I realize that I turn the temperature > > > down on my occasional email flame of a fellow developer. That's a > > > sacrifice I'm willing to make. > > > > It's funny that someone who wants to be the Project Leader uses the > > word "sacrifice" here. > > i thought it was quite amusing and perfectly in character for branden. > > he's acknowledging what some people would consider a fault and saying > he'll moderate himself a bit. > > "sacrifice" also seems an appropriate word to use - what else would > you call refraining from flaming someone who well and truly deserves it? I can't accept that "people truly deserve to be insulted". I for one want a DPL having a *minimum* of social skills, not one that promises to have them *if* elected DPL, thanks.
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Nevertheless, if elected DPL, I realize that I turn the temperature > > > down on my occasional email flame of a fellow developer. That's a > > > sacrifice I'm willing to make. > > > > It's funny that someone who wants to be the Project Leader uses the > > word "sacrifice" here. > > i thought it was quite amusing and perfectly in character for branden. > > he's acknowledging what some people would consider a fault and saying > he'll moderate himself a bit. > > "sacrifice" also seems an appropriate word to use - what else would > you call refraining from flaming someone who well and truly deserves it? I can't accept that "people truly deserve to be insulted". I for one want a DPL having a *minimum* of social skills, not one that promises to have them *if* elected DPL, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
Branden Robinson wrote: > Nevertheless, if elected DPL, I realize that I turn the temperature > down on my occasional email flame of a fellow developer. That's a > sacrifice I'm willing to make. It's funny that someone who wants to be the Project Leader uses the word "sacrifice" here.
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
Branden Robinson wrote: > Nevertheless, if elected DPL, I realize that I turn the temperature > down on my occasional email flame of a fellow developer. That's a > sacrifice I'm willing to make. It's funny that someone who wants to be the Project Leader uses the word "sacrifice" here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
> unzip should be in main now - it's now got a free license. Clarification: unzip is in non-US/main in woody, for those who didn't find it.
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
> unzip should be in main now - it's now got a free license. Clarification: unzip is in non-US/main in woody, for those who didn't find it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
I wrote: > * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional > way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need > to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice". Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.". I think I would support a change in the constitution so that this is decided by a group of persons.
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
> The problem is: > > (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can > legally (according to the constitution) be modified > (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract > should require a supermajority > (c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract > by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the > constitution So, the real problem is: * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice".
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
I wrote: > * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional > way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need > to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice". Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.". I think I would support a change in the constitution so that this is decided by a group of persons. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
> The problem is: > > (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can > legally (according to the constitution) be modified > (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract > should require a supermajority > (c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract > by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the > constitution So, the real problem is: * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > 5.Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. > > > > These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > > relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > > policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian > > software must meet. > > > > By declaring that the Social Contract modification does not meet the > > criteria for a GR, and thus fails the §4.1(5) test, he is saying that > > it is not a document describing the goals of the project, nor does it > > describe its relationship with other free software entities, nor does > > it describe nontechnical policies. Clearly all three of these > > assertions are false. Only one need be true for the modification to > > be legal as a GR. Any reasonable person can see that clearly the > > Social Contract, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is in fact a document that > > defines Debian's relationship with other free software entities and > > describes the goals of the project! To claim otherwise is ludicrous. > > Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship > with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project." > However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification > of existing documents or revoking existing documents, only to the issuing > of documents. What exactly prevents an existing document to be re-issued?
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > 5.Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. > > > > These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > > relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > > policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian > > software must meet. > > > > By declaring that the Social Contract modification does not meet the > > criteria for a GR, and thus fails the §4.1(5) test, he is saying that > > it is not a document describing the goals of the project, nor does it > > describe its relationship with other free software entities, nor does > > it describe nontechnical policies. Clearly all three of these > > assertions are false. Only one need be true for the modification to > > be legal as a GR. Any reasonable person can see that clearly the > > Social Contract, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is in fact a document that > > defines Debian's relationship with other free software entities and > > describes the goals of the project! To claim otherwise is ludicrous. > > Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship > with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project." > However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification > of existing documents or revoking existing documents, only to the issuing > of documents. What exactly prevents an existing document to be re-issued? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: > Debian General Resolution > > Resolved: > > A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be > amended as follows: > > 1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: "We acknowledge that > some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to > the Debian Free Software Guidelines. While we will not distribute > such software itself, we have created areas in our archive for > packages that help install or otherwise requre this software. The > software in these areas is not part of the Debian system, although > it has been configured for use with Debian." The title of > Section 5 shall be modified to read: "We will support users of our > system who develop or run non-free software." > > 2. That Section 1 be amended such that the final sentence reads: "We > will neither distribute nor make the system depend upon an item of > non-free software." > [...] I've been asked to repeat my sponsorship in debian-vote, so here it is again: I sponsor this resolution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBOUTUFSqK7IlOjMLFAQGotgP/a0o2qsxSxTd9cDQK/DFeN9H2F4wg9pzo Kwoy4TrZmW7aIPy2zKZR+ColCfBUGV2tHsgEjSzl14NmhVkD2Wd6UeEegdfEbcJ+ VcAjBFpWQLKMSi6ga+bdQnoOgYTBkpywLCMVw+KE+i+9pexnUmNOplVatnmwxokj v0b5insRn8M= =+9D7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: > Debian General Resolution > > Resolved: > > A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be > amended as follows: > > 1. That text of Section 5 be modified to read: "We acknowledge that > some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to > the Debian Free Software Guidelines. While we will not distribute > such software itself, we have created areas in our archive for > packages that help install or otherwise requre this software. The > software in these areas is not part of the Debian system, although > it has been configured for use with Debian." The title of > Section 5 shall be modified to read: "We will support users of our > system who develop or run non-free software." > > 2. That Section 1 be amended such that the final sentence reads: "We > will neither distribute nor make the system depend upon an item of > non-free software." > [...] I've been asked to repeat my sponsorship in debian-vote, so here it is again: I sponsor this resolution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBOUTUFSqK7IlOjMLFAQGotgP/a0o2qsxSxTd9cDQK/DFeN9H2F4wg9pzo Kwoy4TrZmW7aIPy2zKZR+ColCfBUGV2tHsgEjSzl14NmhVkD2Wd6UeEegdfEbcJ+ VcAjBFpWQLKMSi6ga+bdQnoOgYTBkpywLCMVw+KE+i+9pexnUmNOplVatnmwxokj v0b5insRn8M= =+9D7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
