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 bro
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:00:27AM +0200, BALLABIO GERARDO wrote:
> I disagree. If there's non-free material in main [...]
This is not a discussion list. Please don't hold constitutional debates
here, they are off-topic.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
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
>>
> 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 v
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". Tro
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
