subscribing to something this person said.
Thanks
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
|
-
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all
firmware) I don't see any
correlation.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can
by ranking option 2 above option 4.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
with that
doesn't change things.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
want.
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as
necessary.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data
the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
it because I expect we can have a healthy discussion about it after
Lenny is released.
Best wishes to everyone,
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
It has to be said
to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh
, but not
for the rest of Debian.
- The developers are implicitly endorsing an exception for the rest of
Debian packages.
Please, could you send a new message clarifiing the situation, and your
judgement as Secretary?
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We
on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
I'm not sure I agree with your sense
that it actually has the intended effect.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
operations of Debian, except in so far as it
| influences individual contributors' actions.
`
How does this differ from the previous one in practice?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's
) and the other archives we provide
/support as a supplement to Debian.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access
the content of my message, not because its form.
I have already apologised to Ben for the form, but I don't owe an apologise
for the content, and I won't give it to you.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:56:00PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:17:20 +0200
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to make it clear, please don't take it as if I were recriminating
something to you. My understanding is that this problem is about general
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 01:58:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:03 +0200]:
I think the reason you (and the other minority of bashers in this thread)
are
annoyed is because the content of my message, not because its form.
You are certainly
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:27:39PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:13:17 +0200]:
I'd rather believe something else if I could. Do you have a better
explanation for:
some people complain about my message being harsh
by sending replies
non-free
: Description: Debian x.y Testing distribution - Not Released
So lenny is made from main (Debian), contrib and non-free.
Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it?
This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 20:36:17 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this?
Stop trolling about utterly uninteresting details?
I think it's you who are trolling
reaction).
The ideal to stand and defend freedom is the whole reason I care about Debian,
so when I feel that its reputation is being damaged, I get hurt too.
Anyway, I really appreciate your work on making eeepc's better supported
in Debian.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:01:50PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:36:17 +0200
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it?
This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this?
I have never understood
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:22:16PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
Lenny is Debian. non-free is not part of Debian. Check the
Social Contract.
I wonder what is it that we do wrong to spread this confusion so
much that it affects even Debian developers themselves
[ adding debian-project ]
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 01:53:54PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 08:28:19AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Earliest Eee models fully supported in Lenny
Lenny will release with the atl2 ethernet driver and the non-free
madwifi-source
agreement with his methods. I'm
merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand why a person
who has been forcibly silenced would react this way.
Then again, if someone objects to it, just let me know and I won't send it.
Thanks
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:51:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the
slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly
discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community.
Update: Sven
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:04:01AM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Em Sex, 2007-06-29 às 15:51 +0200, Robert Millan escreveu:
The message is political in nature, but its tone is not something that I
would find offensive or rude.
I personally think this has already been discussed ad
of the other
tests mentioned.
Hi Stephen,
As others have said, it is not fair to put on me the extra burden of recasting
the message in my own words. Plus, I don't think it does really archieve
anything.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 04:34:21PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 29 June 2007 15:51, Robert Millan wrote:
Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods.
I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand
why a person who has been forcibly
like real world judges do.
This is the only way to bring debian back again on the way to fun and
friendliness, and the way to a police state that ian is proposing,
altough nearer to the habits of DDs, is definitively not the way to go.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
Robert Millan
My spam
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 09:49:23AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
Sven Luther requested me to forward a message to this list for him.
I have no problem with you forwarding a message.
I would caution you that it is likely you would be held responsible
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 06:08:16PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 6/20/07, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Since every GNU/Linux distributor seems to be positioning with regards to
possible patent deals with Microsoft, I thought we could do the same.
Actually, it's totally
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:50:21AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 06:08:16PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 6/20/07, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Since every GNU/Linux distributor seems to be positioning with regards to
possible patent deals
before..
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by
losing the right to distribute GPLv3 software. This is exactly what a
positioning statement would reflect: that our community model is
invulnerable to this kind of threats (and also to going out of bussiness,
etc).
Thoughts?
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address
Hi,
Maybe it'd be a good idea if Debian adhered to the pledge at:
http://www.showusthecode.com/
I believe as DPL you are empowered to represent Debian on this decision.
(CCing debian-project)
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam
46 matches
Mail list logo
