Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))

2003-05-26 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: > >>Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 > >> of our Social Contract? > > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. T

Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))

2003-05-26 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of non-free GR. Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"? In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a

Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))

2003-05-24 Thread MJ Ray
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: >> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 >> of our Social Contract? > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of > non-free GR. Is proposing a GR you

Re: Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))

2003-05-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote: > Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4 > of our Social Contract? No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of non-free GR.

Removal of non-free (was Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))

2003-05-21 Thread Simon Law
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the > first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own > definition of free software which is different from ours. We also > disagree about Debi