On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:27:08PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> wording of the definition is unfortunate, and needs work, but the real
> question is, would any sane person or court really consider a work
> that cites another work to be a modified version of the original work?
If the work that cite
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:12:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In effect, the DPL is nothing more than a figurehead, that can change from
> year to year.
In real life, figureheads are either:
[a] inanimate objects, or
[b] politicians who are put in place to conceal the real leaders.
I don't think
I'm not quite sure what list I should be posting this to. There doesn't
seem to be a list specifically for discussion about the bug tracking
system (though there are plenty of operational bts lists).
As I understand it, we're about to see an upgrade to the bug tracking
system where closing a bug
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> >
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.
If it's true tha
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> meekness isn't about bullying.
>
> it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
> socially crippled..it is not the fault
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 01:10:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Helen said "women are likely to be not so confident that their skills
> will allow them to survive in an environment like debian, compared to
> their male counterparts". And then, her explanation of what that
> "environment" a
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:44:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> As I said, "if there is any truth to the notion that men are better at
> being bullied". I suspect there is not really much truth to that.
Either "men are better at being bullied" a strawman (irrelevant to the
thread), or you
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:56:37PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I agree, though it should be noted that Debian at least tries to be an
> "equal opportunity" hostile place -- _everyone_ gets abused :)
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more
abuse than less visible people.
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:59:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think there's something sexist there--not in you, but in her. If
> there is any truth to the notion that men are better at being bullied,
> then I think it is only because men get bullied more and have had to
> learn to deal
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and by the way, you're free to join debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> and help implementing whatever you want for the new debian-installer.
> This is no cynicism, help is required.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:38:16AM -0800, Xavian-Ander
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:37:29PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> People who take things personally are not going to behave in a rational
> manner, and some people just aren't rational; Debian has an ample supply
> of both. People who are acting rationally can sort things out on their
> own, witho
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
> had signed on to the draft document without asking them
I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to
implications rather than a reaction
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:27:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e
> joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no
> longer restricted to technical issues, I have a few choice things to
> say about the dcma,
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 12:19:44PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> The only negative thing I see comming out of TCPA is that content
> producers (Hollywood, etc) will release copies of their
> movies/music/whatever for download in a format that can only be accessed
> on TCPA systems. This is the
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 11:57:51PM +0100, Hauke Goos-Habermann wrote:
> Microsoft plans to kill all OpenSource software on hardware level. This
> technology is called TCPA.
> What's TCPA in general you can read at the anti-tcpa site:
> http://antitcpa.alsherok.net/
Please note that TCPA is vaporw
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:36:57AM +0200, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> Not exactly, anarchism just says that you _can't_ have freedom without
> being an army.
Debian will never have an army -- that would make Debian a government,
and would mean that we're way, way, way away from the goals stated in
Le Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:21:19PM +0300, Volkan YAZICI ?crivait:
> >> > there are currently 9 logos, 13 banners, 3 vertical banners,
> >> > 5 cd covers, 2 workouts
> >> >
> >> > adress is http://www.linuks.mine.nu/volkany/
Previously Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> They are really nice, I like them.
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 03:17:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, whether you, or I, personally find qmail to be
> inferior or not is only tangentially significant. The only opinion
> that matters here is of the people who actually work to administer
> and maintain the Debian mai
> That's bullshit, and you know it. There are over 10,000
> instances in debian where we have taken software, created a patch,
> applied it, and distributed the binaries.
You asked the question about qmail, not about debian. I answered
in that context.
--
Raul
"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> [2] qmail is always redistributed at no or very-low cost and
> Raul> almost always in source form. Source can be retained
> Raul> indefinitely, and can be redistributed indefinitely.
On Sun, Sep 0
> Package: project
> Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-27
> Severity: serious
> Justification: violates Social Contract 1, 4, and 5 (maybe others)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:00:10PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> The subject says it all. qmail is installed on murphy.debian.org. qmail
> is non-free.
[DMUP]
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:28:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The team I assembled was not very responsive,
Agreed. Speaking as one of the people in that group -- I didn't
have a good idea of what to propose.
--
Raul
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 06:46:01PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> (*) please give just brief 1 or 2 paragraph statements of your
> positions, not a thesis or argument :) i want to find out what you
> think about these issues, not trigger a repeat of the flamewars (so
> please, people, just accept th
> > This would be non-DFSG if we couldn't distribute it at all.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:05PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> You can certainly say "this _archive_ is only for the use of residents
> of the following countries" and even try to enforce that, as long as
> you don't actually tr
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
> licenced under the GPL that is threatened by a patent
> > Note that both of these require a change to the autobuilders. If the
> > unstable builder is wired to ignore anything targetted for "stable"
> > or "frozen" and the stable builder is wired to export its changes to
> > unstable, then the "stable unstable" target is equivalent to "stable"
> > [w
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 01:48:24PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> We already have two different build queues; one takes stable, one takes
> unstable. The issue is that the stable daemon will take the package
> and build it for stable, while the unstable daemon builds it for
> unstable, producin
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
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.
> 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 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
> > Are you suggesting that this post of mine was not about a development
> > issue?
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Not merely suggesting, but pointing out, as in the quote including a
> snip from http://www.debian.org/MailingLists (again, below). -devel
> is suppos
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 08:53:25PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Well, that's true. But syscall itself is just a libc function.
>
> Yes, but I am not sure if even a subset of the available syscalls are
> standardized across platform anywhere.
We should probably concentrate on the subset of
> > I guess you just can't see how this is different from the case where
> > you have two different kernels for the same cpu, and they already have
> > the capability of running many of the same binaries?
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:01:46PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> They can? I thought iBCS was
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 01:25:26PM +0100, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> What, then, does it take to _be_ debian? Is it the people? The
> policy? The debian-administration and package-bulding packages?
> Are these less important than any single package?
Depends on context.
Certainly, the esse
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:33:27PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> Sure. Let's get functional i386-emulation for sparc, m68k, and
> alpha, and then we can save a whole lot of archive bloat and they
> can save the trouble of porting and rebuilding everything.
I guess you just can't see how this is dif
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:41:13PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> syscalls are a different issue. Software using syscalls can be declared
> as such, and only installed on systems that provide such syscalls or an
> emulation.
Well, that's true. But syscall itself is just a libc function.
Also,
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:41:42AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Please note that Debians architecture and ftp set up make it difficult at
> least to say:
>
> This package is for all linux systems.
>
> This package is for all linux systems, but needs to be recompiled on each.
>
> This package
On Sat, Nov 20, 1999 at 07:33:36AM -0800, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I don't see how Debian/FreeBSD would do anything to jeopardize
> existing Debian ports. It may suck up the time of some developers, but
> since all developers are volunteers, that is their own perogative.
> It will not force any Deb
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:32:41PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> Or maybe SCO will free their kernel and we can run Debian
> under iBCS.
If anyone cares.
--
Raul
> > Very little software should need to be recompiled in this case -- just
> > use the bsd kernel with the linux compatability library.
> >
> > The post I saw looked like an attempt to marshal support for recompiling
> > every debian package.
> >
> > If the purpose is indeed what you say the appr
42 matches
Mail list logo
