Hi.
(Note: I set "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]")
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, at 2 Jul 00 12:05:34 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) writes:
> We are not under pressure to remove non-free. What the FSF would like to see
> is a homepage which doesn't mention non-free, a place where p
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 5. Is it right to deprive people the ability and right to
> > fix or modify software that Debian distributes?
>
> The majority of software in non-free does not, in fact, limit these
> rights. It either limits the right to distribute such chang
Carsten Leonhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You presume to infer far too much in many ways.
> >
> > First, you infer that net utility declines when non-free is removed.
> > I am unconvinced.
>
> Why exactly did you package non-free/idled? Even though you seem to be
> unconvinced that it e
truename <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess we're agree with each other. I mean, even the GR passed,
> that doesn't make Debian a worse distro then RH, only that Debian
> is (in some way) comes to a rpmfind.org, as bad/good as RH.
> (Only techinicaly. I like RH then anyother RPM based distro.
>
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:59:05PM +0800, truename wrote:
> I guess we're agree with each other. I mean, even the GR passed, that
> doesn't make Debian a worse distro then RH, only that Debian is (in some
> way) comes to a rpmfind.org, as bad/good as RH. (Only techinicaly. I like
> RH then anyot
>> " " == truename <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [snip]
>>> I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free
>>> software was no longer maintained by debian.
>
> > this is wrong. Redhat only have ONE cd as their well-organized
> > distro, other packages
First, as Anthony pointed out, we (Debian) haven't deprived any one,
it's the original authors who have done so.
On 13-Jun-00, 01:50 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. Is it wrong to deprive someone of source code to software?
>
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the abi
> " " == truename <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
>> I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free
>> software was no longer maintained by debian.
> this is wrong. Redhat only have ONE cd as their well-organized
> distro, other packages are added by o
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > And don't you think that it contradicts the, so many times quoted,
> > point 4 of the Social Contract that mentiones *users* as our
> > *primary* priority (the word "users" is put before "free software"
>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:50:09AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> You are making a sweeping overgeneralization. Let me start by drawing
> some useful analogies:
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to
> fix or modify his own software?
Is it wrong to deprive someone of
Ryan White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free software was no
> longer maintained by debian. I like many other people have put a lot of
Why? Why could you not just install it yourself or update your
sources.list? After all, this is no worse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> I never questioned anybody's morality. I only questioned morality of the
> situation where we're taking away something from someone (and do it by
> force) without giving them anything else instead. I think it is immoral
> (note: I don't say that *some
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:44:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > tension between them. To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
>
> Let us not try to decieve. Where did you get 'your count'
> and what makes you think the silent majorit
[snip]
>I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free software was no
>longer maintained by debian.
this is wrong. Redhat only have ONE cd as their well-organized
distro, other packages are added by others (even w/o a policy
for quality), while Debian, even the GR passed, coul
This is completely true. Thank you for wording your stance so well. I
would like everyone to take a quick look at the list of packages that are
in non-free. Here is a list of some that I use (in addition to the ones
mentioned by Andrew): mysql, quake2, libqt, pine, prime-net, mpeg123,
tripwire.
On 11 Jun 2000, Colin Walters wrote:
> > "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am curious, where do you get this idea? I have not read anything
> like this in the Debian literature.
>
> The only thing I have read that comes close to saying this is point
> four of the
** On Jun 12, Colin Walters scribbled:
> > "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marek> No, Debian is obligated to provide *functional* software,
> Marek> that's it. The software should be free, that's the ideal
> Marek> and a goal of this distribution, but th
> "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marek> No, Debian is obligated to provide *functional* software,
Marek> that's it. The software should be free, that's the ideal
Marek> and a goal of this distribution, but the project allows for
Marek> non-free software
** On Jun 11, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > > *I* am not ready to make any guarantees. Most of that isn't software
> > > I use.
>
> > That you don't use those packages doesn't make them unnecessary.
>
> It makes it unnecessary for me.
I see. So, if you don't use mutt, then you don't care that it
** On Jun 11, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> > your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
>
> This is not at all clear. Af
[sent to -project instead of -devel]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Jun 10, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > *I* am not ready to make any guarantees. Most of that isn't software
> > I use.
> That you don't use those packages doesn't make them unnecessary.
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> tension between them. To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
Let us not try to decieve. Where did you get 'your count'
and what makes you think the silent majority is more likely to agree
w/ you as to not? The only 'count' that matter
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
This is not at all clear. After all, the entire argument for removing
non-fr
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > ** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> > > Note: the distribution does not contain non-free now.
> > Yah, and that makes your GR completely pointless.
>
> The FTP site does. Why is it so hard for people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > It means that if you are running unstable, you should know how to deal
> > with instability. Don't run unstable otherwise.
> But I will. I just doubt anyone with less motivation than most of us here
> have to use Debian, will make the effort to pac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> > How about leaving the choice to the people, not bugging the users, and
> > not crippling the distribution? That's what I've proposed.
> What?? You left NO choice to the users with your GR. Right now they have
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> How about leaving the choice to the people, not bugging the users, and
> not crippling the distribution? That's what I've proposed.
What?? You left NO choice to the users with your GR. Right now they have the
choice to download software off the net, all on
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > I feel compelled to point out here for the umpteenth time that
> > > non-free software is not part of the distribution, has never been, and
> > > no doubt never will be.
> > Your original resolution made a
** On Jun 10, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > So what if Netscape is missing from unstable? Users aren't running
> > > unstable, and developers are sufficiently mature to know how to deal
> > > with the situation themselves.
> > Is 'sufficiently matu
Hello,
I am not a Debian developer, so I have no rights in the any formal matters
relating to how Debian governs itself. In earlier versions of
representative democracy, those without a vote were supposed to try to
convince those who _could_ vote of their (the non-voters') position. So,
here go
> A lot of stuff in non-free is FREE for most people. Think about
> gif. Most of the world doesn`t care about the patent. Many Packages in
> non-free are nearly free, but for some reason not everywhere or for
> everyone.
GIF sotware should really be in non-US. But I wouldn't bother anyway, the
p
> "Adam" == Adam Rogoyski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Please read section 5 of the social contract. Debian is a
Adam> platform for non-free software. If it were not, parts of
Adam> Debian would be violation of points 5 and 6 of the Debian
Adam> Free Software Guidelines,
> "Goswin" == Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Goswin> I want to ask anyone willing to delete non-free: WHAT IS
Goswin> FREE?
Free is "http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";.
I want to ask anyone willing to delete non-free:
WHAT IS FREE?
A lot of stuff in non-free is FREE for most people. Think about
gif. Most of the world doesn`t care about the patent. Many Packages in
non-free are nearly free, but for some reason not everywhere or for
everyone.
Debian without non-f
[ Continued on -project ]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:35:48PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Yes. The social contract is sacred in that it is one of the building
> blocks upon which the project is founded. Any changes to these foundations
> will lead to project splits and worse. See the flamewar
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:15:40PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> b) Free software is better than non-free software because it is
>*morally better*.
[...]
> It's up to you to decide. I became a debian member because I believed
> (b). I also hope that (a) is true, although I'm not yet entirely
> c
[with this message, I attempt to move the debate over to
debian-project. Please remove -devel from future messages in this
thread!]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:42:27AM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> If the non-free software were entirely replaced by free software with the
> same functionality, then
37 matches
Mail list logo
