Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:40:17PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > In another 10 years (less, I hope!), the world will be more conscious about > Free Software, and its principles. And everyone will be suspicious over > closed-source. Am I a dreamer? Yes. The closed-source software word is accelerat

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And, > regarding the concern of RMS about "publicizing" this location... well, we do > *NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use > that. > > If we

Investment inquires!!!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] My Dear, please i want to be shareholder or to invest my fund in ur company Asapa. - Lee MR. EVANS LEE

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Filipus Klutiero wrote: I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough infrastructure to handle the machines. I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallm

Re: Debian and non-free

В Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:16:57 +0200, Daniel Baumann написа: > were unaware that they also have to leave the 'Copyright (C) Daniel > Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' lines aka author information, and they > never fixed it. Are you talking about

Mentions of non-free (Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free)

> Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the > non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from > there. > > I'm very curious what part of the website or Debian wo

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday > > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :) > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting

Re: Debian and non-free

Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. > > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a > couple of sub-categories. Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but > "non-free-docs" would be j

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Michael Banck wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. > > > > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a > > couple of

Re: Mentions of non-free (Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free)

Filipus Klutiero wrote: >> >> > Translated to the current way things are done, this means that >> according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the >> existence of the > non-free component in a way that suggests getting >> non-free software from > there. >> > >> > I'm very cur

Fw: Debian and non-free

Inizio messsaggio inviato: Data: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:42:08 +0200 Da: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-project@lists.debian.org Oggetto: Re: Debian and non-free On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:15:34AM +0200, David Palei

Re: Re: Mentions of non-free (Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free)

Filipus Klutiero wrote: >> >> > Translated to the current way things are done, this means that >> according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the >> existence of the > non-free component in a way that s

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: >> Michael Banck wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: >> > > >> > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. >> > >> > I think we should consider (post-

Re: Debian and non-free

Em Qua, 2008-09-17 às 08:15 +0200, David Paleino escreveu: > If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their > friend :) Google is non-free. Greetings. -- marcot Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/ Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/ Correio: [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Debian and non-free

Le Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 07:17:45PM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. > > > Someday > > > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :) > > > > No