Re: Debian sponsoring Chinese companies?

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:20:43PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > It seems that Debian has chosen to provide space (e.g., [0]) where a > number of fine Chinese companies can post links to their websites. [...] > [0]http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?KwikiTodo My understanding is that debian.net address

Re: Debian sponsoring Chinese companies?

Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 23:10 +0100, Jorgen Schaefer wrote: >> WikiSpam is a known problem [0, 1] and there have been various >> discussions on how to deal with it. You might want to participate >> by helping to remove the spam from the wiki :-) > > I have a

Re: Debian sponsoring Chinese companies?

On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 23:10 +0100, Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > WikiSpam is a known problem [0, 1] and there have been various > discussions on how to deal with it. You might want to participate > by helping to remove the spam from the wiki :-) I have already removed spam from hundreds of wiki pages,

Re: documentation x executable code

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:18:55AM -0500, Dale E. Martin wrote: > > other things distributed with (and required to be distributed with) free > > software are "secondary" and may be invariant. e.g. copyright notice and > > license text. > > [...] > So is your point the project _could_ decide that

Re: Debian sponsoring Chinese companies?

Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems that Debian has chosen to provide space (e.g., [0]) where a > number of fine Chinese companies can post links to their websites. The > RecentChanges page[1] shows that one IP address has modified scores of > pages in the past 24 hours. Is this r

Debian sponsoring Chinese companies?

It seems that Debian has chosen to provide space (e.g., [0]) where a number of fine Chinese companies can post links to their websites. The RecentChanges page[1] shows that one IP address has modified scores of pages in the past 24 hours. Is this really something that Debian should be doing? [0]

Re: documentation x executable code

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:34:39PM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote: > If I get it right, the practical question at hand is: > > "Should we allow / do we need invariant sections (beyond >meta-data such as licenses or legally required snips of >text) in documentation that goes in "main"

Re: documentation x executable code

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote: > > So, I conclude that the Debian license scheme should cater in some way > > for allowing invariant sections as part of the documentation (but not > > necessarily

Re: documentation x executable code

> other things distributed with (and required to be distributed with) free > software are "secondary" and may be invariant. e.g. copyright notice and > license text. Even if Debian wanted to mandate "licenses may be changed at will" we have no legal authority in most (? I'm no lawyer) countries t

Re: Debian training

On Friday 07 January 2005 09.08, Marco Hofmann wrote: > Hello, > > we're running a medium-sized business in Germany looking for someone > providing a Debian training in the UK preferably in England. It should > be at upper intermediate level. Can someone give me a hint?

Debian training

Hello, we're running a medium-sized business in Germany looking for someone providing a Debian training in the UK preferably in England. It should be at upper intermediate level. Can someone give me a hint? Thanks in advance. Greetings from Germany Marco Hofmann