On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:46:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maks -
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however,
No, what allowed sarge to go out the door with DFSG violations was an
unambigous GR by a majority of the debian developers who decided to
include
those non-free firmware (and GFDL docs, and some random fonts, and ...),
into
sarge even though they didn't quite meet the DFSG.
That vote is not
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maks -
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however,
because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into
testing. Is
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maks -
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
Something about [bug #242866] seems broken, however,
because RC-buggy linux-2.6 packages keep making it into
testing. Is it obvious how to keep
keep me out of this thread.
enough time is lost with any of those dfsg firmware wankers,
that do _zero_ work upstream or on the licensing front.
the drivers are free not-fucking non-free.
rest in peace
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
5 matches
Mail list logo