Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first one load a BLOB/Firmware into a Hardware which runs
> ON the Hardware and not in the OS.
The OS *all* runs "ON the Hardware".
But Debian's determination is about what we distribute. We don't
distribute non-free things as part of Debian ma
Hello Sven,
Sorry for the late reponse, but I am currently Off-Line.
Am 2006-02-13 15:54:23, schrieb Sven Luther:
> Like the mips binary which is part of the tg3 (or some other of those) driver
> and uploaded to to the mips core on the card in question ?
>
> Does that mean that we will also di
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
(the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
the "free" s
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
>> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
>> (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
>> the "free" spirit ? :p
> A cat is not li
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:13:04AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
> > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > everything that is not hardware is software
> >
> > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have t
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:22:39PM +0100]:
> > > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > > everything that is not hardware is software
> > >
> > > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> > > (the DNA full sequence) if
Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kit
Adam McKenna wrote:
>> No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
>> others for SATA cards.
>
> Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
It surely is, the current generation of ATI cards doesn't even support
2D with free drivers (beyond VESA, o
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
> > others for SATA cards.
>
> Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
> others for SATA cards.
Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> non-free as far as I can remember.
That's why we have web archives:
Dropping Option
[Jean-Christophe Dubacq]
> Is non-free not already distributable ? If something is not
> distributable, then it cannot even be in non-free.
non-free is distributable via the Debian FTP sites. However, not all
of it is distributable in other ways:
- some non-free software may have a license gran
Em Qui, 2006-02-09 às 21:18 -0500, Christopher Martin escreveu:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG.
And so to remove it... If it's a judgement for one side, it's a
judgement for the other...
> Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:09:26AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You said "we *ALL* voted to keep it", which means that every vote cast
> was to keep non-free. In other words, the vote was unanimous.
Oh, whatever, i take back the word 'all' then in that sentence, i guess that
almost everyone under
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:35:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I don't see what that has to do with the simple fact of what the vote
> > was about and how it turned out.
>
> So, you think that the vote in itself is the important one
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> > > time, by defeating the G
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> > non-free as far as I can
13/02/06 at 15:54, Sven Luther wrote :
In this case, yes, the solution might be to create a "non-free-data"
*distributed* and available in standard.
non-free-distributable section, which CD creators can easy add to
the CDs, and
people wanting pure-free can include.
Is non-free not alread
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
> > meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the
> > fate
> > of
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
> meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the fate
> of our non-free section, and we all voted to keep it, especially because there
Gentlemen,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:14:56PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > everything that is not hardware is software
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (t
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
>> main, by insisting that it is not software
>
> Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
They aren't?
There are seve
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> everything that is not hardware is software
So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
(the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
the
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Well, there are cases where the differences are totally unclear. Let's
> start with PostScript files, go to interactive PDFs and -- while we are
> at it -- let's think about HTML files with Javascript.
Yes and no. They are clearly documentation in their f
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:37:31AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
> > main, by insisting that it is not software
>
> Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
every
[Thomas Weber]
> let's think about HTML files with Javascript.
>
> What are these? Documentation, computer programs, both?
To me the much more interesting question is "Given that you can make a
distinction between documentation and other software, why do users of
documentation not deserve the sa
Am Montag, den 13.02.2006, 09:37 +0100 schrieb Xavier Roche:
> But I still consider documentation different than softwares, and don't see
> any major problem regarding the FDL.
Well, there are cases where the differences are totally unclear. Let's
start with PostScript files, go to interactive PDF
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
> main, by insisting that it is not software
Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and
> > sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the
> > current s
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:41:03AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Nobody is lying. A "lie" is an untruth made with the intent to
> > deceive. Debian doesn't try to hide these unmodifiable licenses;
> > it's been discussed open
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal
>> and sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I
>> feel that the current sit
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, there is also a dishonest way. That is to leave the Social
>> Contract claiming that everything in Debian is free (or "free software",
>> doesn't matter) according to the DFSG, but then to go ahead and put
>> DFSG-non-free stuff into Debian. A
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and
> sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the
> current situation is one in which Debian is using its Social Contract to
> lie t
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project.
>
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I will immediately propose a
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:23:03PM +0100, J??r??me Marant wrote:
>> For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU
>> Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing
>> them make Debian more free? I doubt anyone is
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:23:03PM +0100, J??r??me Marant wrote:
> For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU
> Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing
> them make Debian more free? I doubt anyone is going to convince me of this
Hi,
Raul Miller schrieb:
>>This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
>>resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".
> The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
> supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, be
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:21:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
> > resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed
> > 3:1".
>
> The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
> su
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
> I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
> write any code for it.
I don't know what
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance wi
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
> constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
> ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
> in a sense, by continuing to leave bu
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:23:10 +0100, Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> just one thought: we have programs in main, where derived works are
> only allowed as original source+patches (TeX comes to my mind...)
> couldn't it be basically the same thing with GFDL documents? if there
> is an inva
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
> constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
> two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in com
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why "rather than"? I'd say "before" instead.
>
> I know. You think it's fine to shut your ears, call people idiots,
> fundamentalists, and complain about voting procedures. I disagree.
They are not idiots and voting procedures conform our cur
This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I will immediately propose a GR to
> > amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable licens
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> No, because I thought that they (and the GFDL) passed the DFSG. Why
>> would I "speak up" about a license that, at the time, I thought passed
>> the DFSG?
>>
>> I changed my mind after I was convinc
Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:52:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
>> > only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from
>> > it.
>>
>> Right, but t
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU
>> Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing
>> them make Debian more free? I doubt anyon
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, because I thought that they (and the GFDL) passed the DFSG. Why
> would I "speak up" about a license that, at the time, I thought passed
> the DFSG?
>
> I changed my mind after I was convinced by the arguments of other
> people. You know, li
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:52:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
> > only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from
> > it.
>
> Right, but the point is that the binary does not include the r
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU
> Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing
> them make Debian more free? I doubt anyone is going to convince me of this,
> despite the interp
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>>> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
>>> convinced th
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Debian was mostly unaware of the existence of these invariant
>> sections, and the problem had not been greatly discussed.
>
> Do you mean people never read licenses before?
I do not know of any evidence that people were aware of the invariant
section
Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a 'patch' in the first run is also an extension to the original source;
> only an interpreter (in most cases, /usr/bin/patch) makes a 'change' from it.
Right, but the point is that the binary does not include the relevant
bits at all. By contrast, the
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
> determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
> isn't, then the "if" in the first part of your sentence is never
> satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
>>> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are
>>> honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think
>>> contradicts the social c
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri told this:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't
>> bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to
>> be deceived.
> Well, at least now you agree that the GR tit
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't
>>> good enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a
>>> supervisory one.
>> Often
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists. I suspect some of them
>> did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way. After all,
>> weren't they editorial changes?
>
> Ah. I didn't understand earlier that you meant you felt dec
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
>> convinced they have been deceived.
>
> Who, please?
Me, at lea
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
>> like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
>> to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not
>> subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between
>> simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
>> beer!!!)
>
> Yeah
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:52:01AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing. Once in a while, you
> >> get
> >> confused or desperate people o
Henning Glawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing. Once in a while, you get
>> confused or desperate people on d-legal trying to argue "we allow license
>> texts to be unmodifiable, so t
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This really just isn't a problem that needs fixing. Once in a while, you get
> confused or desperate people on d-legal trying to argue "we allow license
> texts to be unmodifiable, so this invariant ode to my cat should be allowed,
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> > that is the
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> > determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm saying
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> > enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
> Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory
> one.
The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
has the final decision for the form of the
Anthony Towns writes:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However, Debian is different
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> > contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
> that we're not that honourable and need to have
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to
> amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in
> Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> > say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> > interpreted.
> That's a strawman argument.
> The ballot options are not being ignored.
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to
amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in
Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should.
I'd welcome someone else beating me to it.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:34PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not
> the changes were "editorial" or not. Whether it was or was not, it's
> now over and done with. This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue.
The changes could onl
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
>> > silly
>> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need t
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
> > Section 4.1.5.3 seems
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [Christopher Martin]
> >> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> >> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> >> vote.
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
>
>> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
>
> Who? I can't recall any. Ca
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly
> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
> > protection, believe it or not.
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> This is an old canard.
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:31:55AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> > > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> > > convinced they have been deceived.
> >
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> > convinced they have been deceived.
>
> > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> previous wording (not everything is software)
>
> Uh ?
Wouldn't help, as I noted elsewhere. "Debian is 100% free software" doesn't
actually leave any room for non-software in Debian. The previous
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other develo
> On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> > relicensing to hap
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
This is an old canard.
It *was* an editorial change: we'd already worked out that it *made no
differen
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
>
> There were exactly 909 developers including active, MIA and inactive ones at
> the time of the 2004-04 GR, as stated in t
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:29AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> >>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> > are GPLed, the co
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
>> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
>> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
> by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
> very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amou
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> The only
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
