Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13-Jun-00, 01:57 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ...Nor did I say that it is not useful simply because I did not use
> > it. Nor, I think, did anyone else support my position on those
> > grounds, although plenty supported t
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> software "good, valuable principles." There is no logical or ethical
> basis for such a sta
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 5. Is it right to deprive people the ability and right to
> > fix or modify software that Debian distributes?
>
> The majority of software in non-free does not, in fact, limit these
> rights. It either limits the right to distribute such chang
Carsten Leonhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You presume to infer far too much in many ways.
> >
> > First, you infer that net utility declines when non-free is removed.
> > I am unconvinced.
>
> Why exactly did you package non-free/idled? Even though you seem to be
> unconvinced that it e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > >
> > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> >
> > Namespace conflicts for one.
> - version conflicts
What do you mean?
> - compliance with the
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> >
> > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
>
> Namespace conflicts for one.
I see no reason why this has to be a problem. We do not have
namespace confli
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:27:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
>
> You won't win an argument by inventing arguments you wish your opponent had
> said. Obviously, I did not say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because many
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> > >
> > > To reaff
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:14:54PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My post was made solely to point out the illogic of Hamish Moffatt's
> equivalence between "throwing out the Social Contract on a whim", which was
> what he accused John Goerzen of attempting to do, and the text of John's
> Genera
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
> >
> > Your principles are the support and spreading of non-free software?
>
> Not at all. I refer to the principles stated in the Debian
> Social Contract:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Mee
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:38:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > > amend the social contract.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > amend the social contract.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How is this a rebuttal? It's not even on point. If the constitution
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Ple
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
Please explain what
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> whim.
Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
I see an amendement of its language, but no blanket repeal of the document.
--
G. Branden Ro
truename <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess we're agree with each other. I mean, even the GR passed,
> that doesn't make Debian a worse distro then RH, only that Debian
> is (in some way) comes to a rpmfind.org, as bad/good as RH.
> (Only techinicaly. I like RH then anyother RPM based distro.
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
