On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
> > repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
> > lower quality that non-f
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:04:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Once you have a legal copy of a piece of software you're allowed to do
> anything you want with it except make more copies and redistribute them.
FWIW, in Australia that's not the case -- the copying that you do to run
the program (ie,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
> > > > example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
> > > > have to h
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
>
> If that were the case, why did I:
>
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though t
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is non-free software.
Debian's not 100% non-free software, though, which makes the claim that:
> So the only important question is: do you want to work
> on a free distribution or a propr
so, what exactly is in non-free?
some people expressed doubt about the claims i made regarding the actual
contents of non-free. i said that very few packages were proprietary, that
almost all were 'almost-free' (aka 'semi-free').
since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it m
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:16:48 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-07 14:13:23 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> What is the temporal scope of our social contract? [...] If
>>> forever, [...] Why is there a way to change it in the
>>> constitution?
>> If you
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It hasn't even done that; as I ha
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:21:32 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:31:01AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava 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 appe
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
> since no-one else has bothered to answer this question, i did it myself. a
> classification of e
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
>> migrate. (Branden: saying that nethack exists, and is a replacement
>> for tome is like say
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
If that were the case, why did I:
1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
nullified);
2. Second the proposals before us now,
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:12:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Sorry, "insincere ballot options" doesn't parse. Insincere
>> > voting refers to th
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:52:16 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion, good
>> enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is worth
>> little.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
>> atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
> He didn't speak as Secreta
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wr
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
>> conditions under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
> I confess I have
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> > decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
> > proving it is possib
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> If you == "Dale E Martin", you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
> would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
> the cost/benefit since one day this could come to a vote. Please don't
> turn a u
> > I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with
> > me, please at least argue with what I actually stated.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:22:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook.
Actually talking about the topic at hand
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> [CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > so, what exactly is in non-free?
>
> Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
>
> > since no-one else
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:43:28AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > [CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > so, what exactly is in
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
> renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
We probably don't have the legal right to distribute that one. The Knuth
license
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:55:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > [For the W3C docs, for example, there is no reason except convenience
> > why they would _have_ to be served from .debian.org - could we get them
> > to host the .debs of their own documentation? ]
>
> The problem with third party
On 2004-01-10 12:41:48 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It would be interesting to split into classes "no commercial", "no
modification", "patent", "compatibility", "notification" and "other"
at
first glance.
what is compatibility for ?
Packages that you are allowed to modify,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
At what level *do* we provide it?
> However, we can be fairly confident
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> [CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > so, what exactly is in non-free?
>
> Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
>
> > since no-one else
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:45PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Dale Martin wrote:]
> > > > The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well, see
> > > > below for an actual practical benefit.) We have something called
> > > >
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
>> the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually remove
>> non-free from
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What's your definition of a "problem"?
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
Craig,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> some people expressed doubt about the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
>
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Stan
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be affected
> by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
Speaking for myself, dealing with a separate non-free archive would
mean:
1. Uploading to a di
I'm leaving the attributions in the exact places Branden left them,
for this message. I'm adding people's names in square brackets in
lower case in the places where I'd normally put their attributions.
I'll explain more below.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Branden Robinso
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 07:57:09 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >if you want to check the licenses yourself, email me and i can send
> >you a
> >300KB
> >file containing just the copyright files. it's too big to attach to
> >a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
> a meaningful position.
It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarded
by its users and/or the outside world. Perhaps a DebianPlanet vote c
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been
> taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to
> users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a
> way that its easy for user
> > 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.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not at the level of main.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:37:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
Hi,
Craig Sanders wrote:
> sl-modem-daemon looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
> why is this in non-free?
> sl-modem-source looks like BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause.
> why is this in non-free?
Parts of it are binary-onl
Rather than nitpick the quoting, attributions, and logical flow of
past arguments I will share my current thoughts on this issue:
1) The DFSG spells out what the Debian project considers free software.
2) The first clause of the social contract says "We promise to keep the
Debian GNU/Linux Distrib
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:12:26PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would be interesting to split into classes "no commercial", "no
> modification", "patent", "compatibility", "notification" and "other"
> at first glance.
Yes, if somebody could do this, this would be very valuable.
Another thing I thi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> > > decision is reached to remo
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It hasn't even done that; as I ha
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > than any of the other proposals?
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Ro
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:57:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Yes, I think that not only free programs have cornered the
> > > market for being useful and important (unless you are a zealot, when
> > > this is all moot any
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
>> >> Because I someh
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
> nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
> the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand the purpose of the GR.
-
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:27:09AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:39:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be affected
> > by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
>
> But most importantly,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
> > > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved
> > > that."
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:35:44AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43P
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
> > > replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of work,
> > > and I am not going to in
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > molphy very simple license says it is "free software". fails to
> > have
> > an explicit clause allowing modification. clarification
> > would be good, but IMO there is no compelling reason
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > "non-free removal GR draft"?
>
> Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
> don't have the chance to be a native english speaker,
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian]", then they should want
to
setup such an archive.
If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete with BTS, signed
uploads, mailing lists, etc., would you support the non
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I might be wrong, of course, but that no one seems to be willing to setup
> a working non-free archive just for the hell of it seems to indicate X
> isn't trivially small.
I think that's a hasty conclusion. I think the fact that no
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:19:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm sorry if this grates, but I've heard these proposals over and over
> in the last few months, and it's getting old.
I've been hearing these proposals over and over for the past four YEARS,
at least.
> I think Debian should ei
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of prog
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what
> this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded. The wording still
> leaves open the question of whether "we have created [sections on
> our ftp site]" m
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:49:36PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
>
> That would be misleading I think.
>
> Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
I can go one better. Include
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > > another year or
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standard
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The best way to get rid of non-free would involve writing free
>> replacements for all software in non-free. But that's a lot of
>> work, and I am not g
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> > current discussion about non-free.
>
> > I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so
On 2004-01-10 07:57:09 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if you want to check the licenses yourself, email me and i can send
you a
300KB
file containing just the copyright files. it's too big to attach to
a mailing
list.
Can you upload somewhere, please?
i probably should hav
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
> > > "non-free removal GR draft"?
> >
> > Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dic
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
But is that because of what's contained in "non-free" or is that
because
of the name "non-free"?
Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So,
currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
***much*** simpler.
As you point out earlier in your email, we already have this problem.
I suspect it will get worse
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
> > to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
> > that means i may not have noted down all the reasons why a particular
> >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
> >debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
> >***much*** simpler.
>
> As you point out earlier in
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
> with some extra text surrounding it]
Thanks Andrew for doing this.
> It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
> and/or understand my
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:08:50PM +, John Lines wrote:
> > > It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all,
> > > by mistake.
> >
> > Needs verifying. The description says: "Due to license considerations,
> > this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto y
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Claus
[This is not an amendment; this my proposal of December 29th repeated,
with some extra text surrounding it]
It has been drawn to my attention that people are failing to read
and/or understand my proposal. For reference, here it is (as it
currently stands) repeated:
---8<--
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will c
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
> > renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
>
> We probably don't have
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > encountered nothing but flamewar,
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense to ask users if we should drop non-free,
> per se -- how would interpret 20% saying "no", and 80% saying "yes"?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was proposing to poll the users
whether they think '
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were
> loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try
> doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my
> writing is not of t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:10:57AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:53:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
> > > repositories at work for so
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is the process of voting which will enable us to measure what we want
> > to do. How we *act* upon that measurement is the "cutting".
>
> Yes, and making a res
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must
> > > be
> > > renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
> On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> > We probably
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
> > > > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved
> > > > that."
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Brand
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, our handling of the 3270 code doesn't seem undue caution;
i'm not sure about that.
look closely at each license in the copyright file. all but one explicitly
grant the right to "use, copy, modify, and distribute this softwa
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:30:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You appear to have stated that you do not care to discuss the merits of
> your proposal,
This is accurate, from a certain perspective. I'm not interested in
discussing the "y/n" part of "Drop non-free? [y/n]".
I've been discussing the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
> > > which are really about bugs in upstream software.
> > >
> > > I don't see what's so d
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:21, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all
the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence
becomes a composite of the GPL and his additiona
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Logic is great, but its results are meaningless unless you start from
> > a meaningful position.
> It was at the very least a valuable testimony on how Debian is regarde
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> encountered nothing but flamewar,
[...]
> Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and
> that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a s
On 2004-01-10 13:39:38 + Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another thing I think is interesting: How many different maintainers
are
there for non-free packages. I.e., how many maintainers would be
affected
by the migration to another service, WRT package maintanence.
I counted thi
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR
> > > encountered nothing but flamewar
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:17:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Reading this carefully, it seems that your proposal does not conflict
> with Dale E. Martin's rather constructive proposal from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, namely to leave the actual
> packages on our servers for a while, but only accessib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable rel
[ I've taken the liberty of cc'ing debian-legal, where license issues
are discussed. -legal readers probably want to drop -vote. Reply-to
set. ]
On Jan 10, 2004, at 02:57, Craig Sanders wrote:
X3270
-
x3270 seems to be free. IMO, maintainer is overly cautious
about
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33
> > It's probably in non-free, instead of not being distributed at all,
> > by mistake.
>
> Needs verifying. The description says: "Due to license considerations,
> this package will only extract the source code for MMIX onto your
> system. After installation, you will have to run build-mmix to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
> > >fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:15:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
Michael
(putting -devel back in CC, as this is getting technical again)
[We're talking about putting information on why a package is in non-free
somewhere so that it can be parsed well when needed]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:00:21PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:49:36PM +0100
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
