On Jan 7, Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yes, I need to find five people who don't agree with you. I can do
> that in about an hour.
>
> Then we can test to see if 2/3 of the Developer population disagrees
> with you, in which case the motion carries.
>
> That's how the syst
On Jan 7, Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yes, I need to find five people who don't agree with you. I can do
> that in about an hour.
>
> Then we can test to see if 2/3 of the Developer population disagrees
> with you, in which case the motion carries.
>
> That's how the syst
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:54:12AM +0800, Cesar B. Umali wrote:
> I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000 visitor. To close
> window & contact the prize department.
Close this window to receive your prize.
I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000
visitor. To close window & contact the prize
department.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability
> to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no
> (statistically si
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:54:12AM +0800, Cesar B. Umali wrote:
> I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000 visitor. To close
> window & contact the prize department.
Close this window to receive your prize.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
I got a banner that said I was the 50,000,000
visitor. To close window & contact the prize
department.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability
> to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no
> (statistically si
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> supposed to be used as a filibuster. If his answer to "what's the
> point?" is nothing more involved than "because I want it to be known
> where the developership s
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Somebody else than Debian must run that Alioth-like service, in the
> context of this proposal.
>
> The question is: Would somebody else running an Alioth-like service be a
> significant drop of convieniance, infrastructure quality,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:26:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What about '*the* Debian Distribution'? Would you consider non-free as
> being part of that? (As opposed to 'Debian's main distribution')
In the context of the social contract, it clearly isn't: it's defined as
100% free software tha
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can
> > > be
> > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
> > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
> >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> supposed to be used as a filibuster. If his answer to "what's the
> point?" is nothing more involved than "because I want it to be known
> where the developership s
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
>> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
>> > of our s
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:45:34 -0500, Dale E Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I understand your point. But it's obvious to me that making a
> change will require effort above and beyond making it. If the
> initial change is most of the cost, perhaps it's worth it.
> What if today we put in a C
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:56:23 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:19:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is, in my opinion, equally wrong headed. Non-free is present
>> because at least one developer found the packages there useful
>> enough to buck t
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Somebody else than Debian must run that Alioth-like service, in the
> context of this proposal.
>
> The question is: Would somebody else running an Alioth-like service be a
> significant drop of convieniance, infrastructure quality,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:26:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What about '*the* Debian Distribution'? Would you consider non-free as
> being part of that? (As opposed to 'Debian's main distribution')
In the context of the social contract, it clearly isn't: it's defined as
100% free software tha
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can be
> > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
> > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
> > get-rid
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
>> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
>> > of our s
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:45:34 -0500, Dale E Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I understand your point. But it's obvious to me that making a
> change will require effort above and beyond making it. If the
> initial change is most of the cost, perhaps it's worth it.
> What if today we put in a C
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:56:23 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:19:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is, in my opinion, equally wrong headed. Non-free is present
>> because at least one developer found the packages there useful
>> enough to buck t
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:45:34PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> What if today we put in a CNAME for nonfree.org to debian.org and then
> configured apache to not show non-free directories for people coming in on
> debian.org http requests? (Ignore ftp and rsync for the moment for the
> sake of di
> Presumably you should list "Perceived philosophical costs in not
> supporting as a project all the software we legally can" in the next
> section.
Legal != ethical, so I'm not sure I'd add that. I'm not personally saying
anything about the ethics of non-free, btw.
> Uh. How about not being qu
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:46:45 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-07 14:24:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> You fear that people who know absolutely nothing about a package
>> are deemed not the best judges to propose replacements?
> No, I fear pointless
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
> propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
> I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to wr
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:19:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That is, in my opinion, equally wrong headed. Non-free is
> present because at least one developer found the packages there
> useful enough to buck the trend and package. I think it is important
> we continue to provide
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
> not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
> you don't wish to advocate?
>
> Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
> > our stated goals, users and free software.
>
> I beg to differ. Indeed, the ver
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
>
> I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
> for myself after poking around a bit:
>
> What is the ratio
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:45:34PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> What if today we put in a CNAME for nonfree.org to debian.org and then
> configured apache to not show non-free directories for people coming in on
> debian.org http requests? (Ignore ftp and rsync for the moment for the
> sake of di
> > Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
> > is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
> > above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I shou
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
> > a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
> > current situation an
> Presumably you should list "Perceived philosophical costs in not
> supporting as a project all the software we legally can" in the next
> section.
Legal != ethical, so I'm not sure I'd add that. I'm not personally saying
anything about the ethics of non-free, btw.
> Uh. How about not being qu
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:46:45 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-07 14:24:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> You fear that people who know absolutely nothing about a package
>> are deemed not the best judges to propose replacements?
> No, I fear pointless
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
> propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
> I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to wr
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:19:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That is, in my opinion, equally wrong headed. Non-free is
> present because at least one developer found the packages there
> useful enough to buck the trend and package. I think it is important
> we continue to provide
> > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> supposed to be used as a filibuster.
I never suggested that it was.
And, in fact, it's the Secretary w
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
> not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
> you don't wish to advocate?
>
> Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
> > our stated goals, users and free software.
>
> I beg to differ. Indeed, the ver
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
>
> I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
> for myself after poking around a bit:
>
> What is the ratio
> > Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
> > is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
> > above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I shou
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:56:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That's how the system works.
> You presented a very rough first order approximation of how the system
> works.
> You left out, presumably deliberately, the discussio
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
> > a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
> > current situation an
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> > should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> > our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michae
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000, wh
> > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> supposed to be used as a filibuster.
I never suggested that it was.
And, in fact, it's the Secretary w
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. De
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:56:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That's how the system works.
> You presented a very rough first order approximation of how the system
> works.
> You left out, presumably deliberately, the discussio
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> > should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> > our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michae
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example between 1, a non-free
> user, and 2, a non-free non-user:
> 1. I use A from non-free. What do you suggest I use instead?
> 2. B
> 1. B is no substitute for A! You don't use A, so you don't kn
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000, wh
> > If this is the case, we don't need to take any special action.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You think it is fine that we distribute something that is marching
> towards "crap"?
If that's just a trend, and not what it is, then yes.
> > > To me, it's about li
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:46:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example between 1, a non-free
> user, and 2, a non-free non-user:
> 1. I use A from non-free. What do you suggest I use instead?
> 2. B
> 1. B is no substitute for A! You don't use A, so you don't kn
> > If this is the case, we don't need to take any special action.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You think it is fine that we distribute something that is marching
> towards "crap"?
If that's just a trend, and not what it is, then yes.
> > > To me, it's about li
On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to >
licence
changes.
Can you give a refe
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:46:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:10:21AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I see only one vital point for having those packages on the "real Debian
> > infrastructure", instead of a mere copy of it: You could continue to
> > reassign bugs from
On 2004-01-07 14:24:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You fear that people who know absolutely nothing about a
package are deemed not the best judges to propose replacements?
No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example between 1, a non-free
user, and 2, a non-
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:42:47 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I
>> > feel compelled
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF
>> documentation,
> If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
> not resolve it, then y
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:17 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> > I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
>> > rightly fails the
On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to >
licence
changes.
Can yo
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:46:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:10:21AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I see only one vital point for having those packages on the "real Debian
> > infrastructure", instead of a mere copy of it: You could continue to
> > reassign bugs from
On 2004-01-07 14:24:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You fear that people who know absolutely nothing about a
package are deemed not the best judges to propose replacements?
No, I fear pointless exchanges like this example between 1, a non-free
user, and 2, a non-free
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:16:16 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:42:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Personally, I think all those sort of benefits are outweighed by
>> the people who need to run proprietary software, and finding Debian
>> lets them do th
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:10:21 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as I have noticed, no-one has explicitly asked the minority
> who package for non-free to support the GR, unless they are involved
> in the infrastructure. Maybe they should, as there seem to be 120 or
Yes, I n
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:18:50 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
>> understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
>> less app
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:00:44 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
>> non-free in non-free with a free equivalent.
> Of course, the problem is that there ar
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> > a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
> > licence
> > changes.
>
> Can you give a reference for th
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of our
> > stated goals, users and
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 02:42:47 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I
>> > feel compelled
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF
>> documentation,
> If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
> not resolve it, then y
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and
> > thus the "it" you would have us vote on would not resolve anything.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:13:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If it turns out that a supermajority o
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:17:17 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> > I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
>> > rightly fails the
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:39:13 +, Andrew M A Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One non-free package which can be replaced relatively
> straightforwardly: mpg123 (non-free) is approximately equal to
> mpg321 (in main)
> Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people
> contradicting me
> On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not
> resolve it, then yes.
>
> Works
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:23:01 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-05 17:48:50 + Oliver Elphick wrote:
>> We have a commitment to maintain it as long as it is needed (social
>> contract) and we should abide by that commitment; not chop and
>> change for ideological reasons.
>
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:13:07 -0500, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
>> community. We will place their interests first in our
>> priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in
>> many different kinds of
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> That's how the system works.
You presented a very rough first order approximation of how the system
works.
You left out, presumably deliberately, the discussion period which is
also a part of how the system works.
That's where we
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.
Not at the level of main.
However, we can be fairly confident that a DD won't introduce a
deliberate security flaw into non-free.
--
Raul
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:11:40 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is
> based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Someone thought it important enough to sp[end time tracking
down the sourc
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free Software
> and then eventually see "Oh, there's this non-free stuff. Let's see if
> there's something useful there."
People trying out debian for the first time are much
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:16:16 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:42:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Personally, I think all those sort of benefits are outweighed by
>> the people who need to run proprietary software, and finding Debian
>> lets them do th
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:10:21AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I see only one vital point for having those packages on the "real Debian
> infrastructure", instead of a mere copy of it: You could continue to
> reassign bugs from non-free to main.
>
> Anything else I missed?
The "real Debian infr
Hi Sven,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
>
> That is only a problem for non-free or contrib packages that are not
> w
On 2004-01-07 14:10:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Either that, or bad writing.
You are black, Pot.
--
Kettle
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:10:21 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as I have noticed, no-one has explicitly asked the minority
> who package for non-free to support the GR, unless they are involved
> in the infrastructure. Maybe they should, as there seem to be 120 or
Yes, I n
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:18:50 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your level of
>> understanding about replacements, I must confess the proposal is
>> less app
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:00:44 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
>> non-free in non-free with a free equivalent.
> Of course, the problem is that there ar
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> > a package into non-free has, in and of itself, sometimes led to
> > licence
> > changes.
>
> Can you give a reference for th
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of our
> > stated goals, users and
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Oh.
>
> You used to need stuff from non-free in the past, and then it was ok to
> have non-free, but now that you have no use for it, it should be
> removed, despite maybe other people still needing it ?
No, I advocated removing non-f
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and
> > thus the "it" you would have us vote on would not resolve anything.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:13:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If it turns out that a supermajority o
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:39:13 +, Andrew M A Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One non-free package which can be replaced relatively
> straightforwardly: mpg123 (non-free) is approximately equal to
> mpg321 (in main)
> Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people
> contradicting me
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
(It is not part of debian, we were told in the past. Opponents of the
suggested GR seem to forget that and talk of things like removing from
debian, or phasing out from debian.) What's your suggested plan for
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
