On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with
> > non-free stuff.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest o
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:13:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence
> > non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
> > Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
> tell me
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> affect this. Decisions that a
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > As Debian does not develop arbitrary non-debian related software (from a
> > hive-mind perspective, individual DDs might very well do, but we can't
> > tell them what to
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
> appearing on a separate ballot.
So, there are two cases: sometimes you want issues to be voted on in
separate ballots; sometimes you want them to be voted on in t
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > As Debian does not develop arbitrary non-debian related software (from a
> > > hive-mind perspective, individual DDs might very well do, but we can't
> > > tell them what to do anyway), this change would alter the technical
> > >
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:17:53 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
> software which does not conform to the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines. In order t
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing
water.
No, I think it's more like a hammer.
This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is
dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately
dropped.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:17:49PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> To be more precise: of course, narcotic or hammer can not be evil or
> good without associtated human action. When I'm saying non-free software
> is mostly evil, the associated action is "distributing by Debian". So
> the co
Raul Miller wrote:
I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
developers or users [regardless of any good that the software
Raul Miller wrote:
> > I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
> >
> > You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
> > with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
> > developers or users [regardless of any good
Raul Miller wrote:
> [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not have non-free to di
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> > also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> > for that need is distributed instead).
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 07:47:30PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> That is true,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > You said you wanted things out of non-free.
>
> Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twi
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
> [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not
On 2004-01-17 21:30:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
distribution"?
Raul, in an email on 5 January, I explained that to prevent something
is usually to totally stop something from happening, to make it
impossible
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:16:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not
> > > making
> > > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> > There is nothing th
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:13:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence
> > non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
> > Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
> tell me
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> There is nothing that can be done before passing the GR that will
> affect this. Decisions that a
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > As Debian does not develop arbitrary non-debian related software (from a
> > hive-mind perspective, individual DDs might very well do, but we can't
> > tell them what to
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
> appearing on a separate ballot.
So, there are two cases: sometimes you want issues to be voted on in
separate ballots; sometimes you want them to be voted on in t
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:49AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > As Debian does not develop arbitrary non-debian related software (from a
> > > hive-mind perspective, individual DDs might very well do, but we can't
> > > tell them what to do anyway), this change would alter the technical
> > >
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:17:53 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
> software which does not conform to the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines. In order t
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing
water.
No, I think it's more like a hammer.
This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is
dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately
dropped. You
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:17:49PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> To be more precise: of course, narcotic or hammer can not be evil or
> good without associtated human action. When I'm saying non-free software
> is mostly evil, the associated action is "distributing by Debian". So
> the co
Raul Miller wrote:
I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
developers or users [regardless of any good that the software d
Raul Miller wrote:
> > I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
> >
> > You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
> > with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
> > developers or users [regardless of any good
Raul Miller wrote:
> [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not have non-free to dist
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> > also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> > for that need is distributed instead).
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 07:47:30PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> That is true,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > You said you wanted things out of non-free.
>
> Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twi
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
> [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
> also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
> for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not ha
On 2004-01-17 21:30:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
distribution"?
Raul, in an email on 5 January, I explained that to prevent something
is usually to totally stop something from happening, to make it
impossible. Pl
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:16:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:09:31PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If it happens, and you don't like it, you can blame yourself for not making
> > > what you want clear before passing the GR. *shrug*
> > There is nothing that can
33 matches
Mail list logo
