Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep > non-free as far as I can remember. That's why we have web archives: Dropping Option

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On 13 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche outgrape: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: >>> Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! >> everything that is not hardware is software > > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the > sources (the DNA full sequence) if I

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Ian Jackson
Nathanael Nerode writes ("Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract"): > This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project. ... > "Debian will remain 100% free. (With one exception for license texts, > noted below.) " What we don'

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:09:26AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > You said "we *ALL* voted to keep it", which means that every vote cast > was to keep non-free. In other words, the vote was unanimous. Oh, whatever, i take back the word 'all' then in that sentence, i guess that almost everyone under

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:35:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > I don't see what that has to do with the simple fact of what the vote > > was about and how it turned out. > > So, you think that the vote in itself is the important one

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that > > > time, by defeating the G

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that > > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep > > non-free as far as I can

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the > > meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the > > fate > > of

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! > > everything that is not hardware is software > > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources > (t

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the > meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the fate > of our non-free section, and we all voted to keep it, especially because there

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Xavier Roche
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! > everything that is not hardware is software So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following the

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:37:31AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > > Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in > > main, by insisting that it is not software > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! every

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Xavier Roche
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in > main, by insisting that it is not software Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake! > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

2006-02-13 Thread Sven Luther
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and > > sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the > > current s