On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
> > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing
> > the de iure requirements of the SC relat
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
> > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
> > non-free?
>
> It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32
would benefit some of our users as well, but I don
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
> > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
> > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think.
>
> It might be how *you* think;
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such
> > > standards violation
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:46:26AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >>The DMUP is a load of crap.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh, and it has all the teeth of an amoeba
> Why?
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
a
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version?
They don't really enforce the current version, so... no.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | An
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I think the main problem of the DMUP WRT @d.o is the sole coverage of
> *incoming* mail, thus stating (at least to me) that it's more about
> being bandwidth-aware than b
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
> > > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
> >
> > I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
> > in
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
> > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
> > would be much more compelling
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
> > > non-free?
> > It benefits some of our users.
> We've been here before. Distributing binaries
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:39:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> These ones in particular are ignored on a fairly regular basis, off
> the top of my head:
[...]
> You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> possess.
>
> You must not send (via email) or post Copyright
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > You seem to be asserting
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
> > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
> > > mathematically
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
> > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing
> > the de iure requirements of the SC relat
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de
> > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
> > non-free?
>
> It benefits some of our users.
We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32
would benefit some of our users as well, but I don
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
> > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
> > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think.
>
> It might be how *you* think;
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such
> > > standards violation
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:46:26AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >>The DMUP is a load of crap.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh, and it has all the teeth of an amoeba
> Why?
Because it contains several clauses that are never enforced. That
means "it breaks the DMUP" is clearly not grounds for disciplinary
a
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the DMUP is
> effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily
> be bound to enforce the amended version?
They don't really enforce the current version, so... no.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | An
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> I think the main problem of the DMUP WRT @d.o is the sole coverage of
> *incoming* mail, thus stating (at least to me) that it's more about
> being bandwidth-aware than b
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
> > > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
> >
> > I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
> > in
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
> > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
> > would be much more compelling
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > You seem to be asserting
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:39:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> These ones in particular are ignored on a fairly regular basis, off
> the top of my head:
[...]
> You must not send via email any item which it is illegal to send or
> possess.
>
> You must not send (via email) or post Copyright
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in
> > > non-free?
> > It benefits some of our users.
> We've been here before. Distributing binaries
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
> > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
> > > mathematically
28 matches
Mail list logo
