On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me
> > clarify a few points:
> >
> > 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> > proposed General Resolution will have n
On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me
> clarify a few points:
>
> 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> This bears repeating. Thi
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:06:41PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> non-free is not part of Debian, so why are we distributing it? For
> the convenience of the users. If it were not for that, we would never
> consider it. Since we can meet the convenience of the users in a way
> which does
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. It will have minimal effects since people will still be able to use
> non-free software.
>
> 2. It will have far-reaching effects since Debian (the corporate
> entity) will expend fewer resources in support of people wanting to
> use non-free softwa
[ Continued on -project ]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:35:48PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Yes. The social contract is sacred in that it is one of the building
> blocks upon which the project is founded. Any changes to these foundations
> will lead to project splits and worse. See the flamewar
Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David N. Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ...
> >
> > There is actually a list for these kinds of meta-project discussions:
> > debian-project. It was lame for the origianl poster not to post
> > there, in my opinion.
>
> I disagr
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:02:39PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> I disagree. While debian-project exists, it isn't known to every developer
> or other
> interested party (like myself). A proposal to do something as broadreaching
> as amending
> the Social Contract needs to be discussed in as wide a
> -Original Message-
> From: David N. Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 2:44 PM
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: A User's View on Non-Free
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:41:02PM +0200, Igor Mozetic wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better t
It seems to me that this proposal, like the similar one by Wichert
about a year ago, seems to be bolstered by its supporters with two
mutually exclusive arguments:
1. It will have minimal effects since people will still be able to use
non-free software.
2. It will have far-reaching effects since
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:15:40PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> b) Free software is better than non-free software because it is
>*morally better*.
[...]
> It's up to you to decide. I became a debian member because I believed
> (b). I also hope that (a) is true, although I'm not yet entirely
> c
[with this message, I attempt to move the debate over to
debian-project. Please remove -devel from future messages in this
thread!]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:42:27AM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> If the non-free software were entirely replaced by free software with the
> same functionality, then
11 matches
Mail list logo
