On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:07:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > to dists/woody/
> > add-on/
> > gnome-helix
> > kde
> > wouldn't alter that, while it would collect the existing add-on
> > collecti
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:45:32PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
> > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
> > choose between John's original resolution, or t
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> todists/woody/
> main
> add-on/
> contrib
> non-free
> experimental
> orphaned
> ipv6
>
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > non-free software for it users.
> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> ut
On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
> determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
> choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any
> others that are proposed and seconded), and a
[sent to -project instead of -devel]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Jun 10, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > *I* am not ready to make any guarantees. Most of that isn't software
> > I use.
> That you don't use those packages doesn't make them unnecessary.
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:34:00PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Having Lyx not have an explicit dependency on xforms (apt-get install lyx
> > succeeds, but it doesn't work, why not?), or having that dependency not be
> > meetable within Debian (should
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I wish to pro
Le Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Great. I completely share your opinion.
That's my second mail in this tread. I wish everybody could do like me ...
the thread can't be followed unless yo
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> tension between them. To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
Let us not try to decieve. Where did you get 'your count'
and what makes you think the silent majority is more likely to agree
w/ you as to not? The only 'count' that matter
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
This is not at all clear. After all, the entire argument for removing
non-fr
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:00:43PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
> > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.
>
> Translation: it is easier to defeat John's propo
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> What do we need this in a GR for?
To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP signature
I second this.
Hamish
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as
On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
> couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.
Translation: it is easier to defeat John's proposal if a clearly
defined alternative is proposed to be voted upon at the s
John has said that non-free has ceased to be useful based on the fact that
he doesn't actually make use of it, and many others agreed with this
assesement. So here is a slightly different perspective.
I have gone back and counted the number of packages in the non-free
sections in debian, if Joh
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text o
(Reformatted for clarity; debian-vote trimmed)
John> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
John> utility in us actually providing it?
Dirk> What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitude.
John> Before you flame, perhaps we could get a
I also second this amendment, as it is now clear that it is indeed an
amendment..
This message is gpg signed..
Zephaniah E. Hull..
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:05:15AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wish to propose an ammendment to the propose
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:39:50PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The BTS is a commodity and can be run anywhere. The mailing lists are
> still there.
The BTS and the bug submission tools currently don't have a very good
concept of multiple bug tracking systems.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PRO
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > ** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> > > Note: the distribution does not contain non-free now.
> > Yah, and that makes your GR completely pointless.
>
> The FTP site does. Why is it so hard for people
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Seconded.
> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
>
> --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
>
> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
>
> -
On 10 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer
> > assistants,
>
> I would support such a solution as a compromise, and in fact, have
> already indicated such. As long as Debian does not distribut
On 10 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Please. The dependency is already not meetable within Debian. You
> mean, not meetable with files on ftp.debian.org. Which is really a
> non-issue, as the files could just as easily be retrieved from
> ftp.notdebian.org or whatever.
So uh.. the default A
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Does Debian include non-free software?"
> "Any of the Debian packages itself doesn't include non-free, No."
> "Then users can't use the packages for non-free softwares ?"
> "Some un-official packages in contrib can install non-free softwares
> v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> That would be acceptable, but I see just two points. First is a technical
> one:
>
> - if a package is fetched from a site outside of the Debian control, the
>Debian project cannot guarantee the quality of service, because it cannot
>guarant
Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer
> assistants,
I would support such a solution as a compromise, and in fact, have
already indicated such. As long as Debian does not distribute the
non-free code itself.
-- John
--
To UNSU
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:05:36AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > But this is wrong too. People can still run non-free software with
> > Debian if they like; as amended, the social contract would still
> > explicitly state that, and that we will suppor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > It means that if you are running unstable, you should know how to deal
> > with instability. Don't run unstable otherwise.
> But I will. I just doubt anyone with less motivation than most of us here
> have to use Debian, will make the effort to pac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> > How about leaving the choice to the people, not bugging the users, and
> > not crippling the distribution? That's what I've proposed.
> What?? You left NO choice to the users with your GR. Right now they have
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having Lyx not have an explicit dependency on xforms (apt-get install lyx
> succeeds, but it doesn't work, why not?), or having that dependency not be
> meetable within Debian (should it depend on libxforms? or xformslib? or
Please. The dependency is
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > > non-free software for it users.
> >
> > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> > utility in us actually providing it?
>
> What m
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I imagine this ammendment would be best as a separate option on the
> ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds.
Seconded, if it just would count :)
(another plea to the new-maintainer team - no, just kidding, I will wait
until all of you th
> They neglect to mention that Debian is already highly successful at
> encouraging non-free software authors to relicense, that distributing
> software as non-free rather than part of the distribution itself is
> already a successful disincentive, that often it is the maintainer of the
> non-free
"C. Cooke" wrote:
I suspect I'm not the only one in this position - the debian
> package management is a *real* killer when it comes to impressing people.
You are completely right with that. I am in the same position as I
evaluated different Linux distributions for about 4 months and chose
Debian
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> How about leaving the choice to the people, not bugging the users, and
> not crippling the distribution? That's what I've proposed.
What?? You left NO choice to the users with your GR. Right now they have the
choice to download software off the net, all on
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > I feel compelled to point out here for the umpteenth time that
> > > non-free software is not part of the distribution, has never been, and
> > > no doubt never will be.
> > Your original resolution made a
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>--ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
>> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > So what if Netscape is missing from unstable? Users aren't running
> > > unstable, and developers are sufficiently mature to know how to deal
> > > with the situation themselves.
> > Is 'sufficiently matu
> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> > non-free software for it users.
>
> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> utility in us actually providing it?
What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitu
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:42:53PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Martin Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Crosspost & followup to -project]
> > Debian's apt-get is complicit in making software a LOT easier to discover
> > and install. That is also makes non-free software a lot easier to install
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
This is not really an amendment.
> 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
> non-free software for it users.
What do we need a GR for this?
Very well put. I agree 100%.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Let's retry this with the promised PGP sig...]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Your amendment looks like a c
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
Your amendment looks like a completely different proposal to me.
> The text
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 06:30:10PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> If people really want to do something useful, which will show in a
> practical way that we can do without non-free software, why don't you
> take all of the programs in non-free, and make a hit list. Examine
> them and see if the
[ please cc replies to me ]
If people really want to do something useful, which will show in a
practical way that we can do without non-free software, why don't you
take all of the programs in non-free, and make a hit list. Examine
them and see if there is a free replacement that is every bit as
Hi.
(I don't read "Do not cc me" phrase this time, but I remove
knghtbrd from Cc: field, assuming he will read this anyway.)
(I add "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", becuase I think this
thread should go there, instead of using debian-devel and
debian-vote. I left these two (-devel & -vote
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:47:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> This is a valid point and regardless of the outcome of this resolution I
> am almost insistant that we should also resolve to make the Social
> Contract and DFSG require a 3:1 vote to alter, just like the constitution
> on the ground
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> [please CC: any replies to me]
Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at
you, Joy.)
> directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition
> tools verbosely advise the user about the
** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
>
> Perhaps..
>
>
> > It weakens the social contract
> > ==
> >
> > The social contr
** On Jun 10, Bolan Meek scribbled:
> Greetings: God bless you.
>
> Noting the tension between proponents of purifying in Debian's support
> for
> Free Software by removing non-free from what is now unstable (woody),
> and proponents of supporting the users of non-free software by
> continuing
>
[please CC: any replies to me]
> Perhaps the GR proposed is not the most adiquate solution to do this, but
> I think if there were a second alternative on the table which did not
> alter the social contract and was less technically damaging to the project
> that it actually would have a fair chan
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Perhaps..
> It weakens the social contract
> ==
>
> The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
> base
Many software authors are not as aware of license issues as the average
Debian developer.
Many release pieces of software under a 'no commercial use' license because
they think they might one day be able to sell the software.
At present we can package these, in non-free. The author then has a co
People in this debate are making some very sweeping statements about Free vs
Non-Free software, Rights etc.
Much of this is because non-free is all being lumped in together, and then
being compared, in general terms, with software from The Evil Empire.
I have been looking the licenses of the pie
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
developers to resolve
The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
It weakens the social contract
==
The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now,
Debian users could re
59 matches
Mail list logo
