On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:28:11PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>At this point, with 244 ballots resulting in 216 votes from
> 214 developers, "Choice 1: Change the Social Contract [3:1 majority
> needed]" has carried the day., with a 4.462:1 majority, well over the
> 3:1 neede
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> than its license, right?
>
> Hence, every document released under the GNU FDL needs to be c
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
> > in all cases
> It's good when this happens.
> > * debian-installer will need to be rewritten to support obtaining
> > non-fre
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> than its license, right?
No. There are other issues with the GFDL, of the more common "This
[Jochen Voss]
> By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in
> "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"?
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Social Contract now states:
>
> ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> ] ...
>
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't
Martin Schulze wrote:
>Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
>are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
>than its license, right?
No, everything under the GFDL appears non-free.
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml di
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
> > things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
> >
> > This will result in the following problems:
> >
> > * important packages
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
> things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
>
> This will result in the following problems:
>
> * important packages such as glibc will have no documentation
This should not be too bad given
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
> Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
>
> What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
> the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7, I doubt
> it does.
You're s
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > * many pieces of hardware will not be supported by the Debian system
> > itself
> Since we already face this "problem" woody already due to new hardware
> being incompatible with older one, only the number will grow.
Joe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content su
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
> >
> > What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
> > the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 Decembe
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > * many pieces of hardware will not be supported by the Debian system
> > > itself
> > Since we already face this "problem" woody already due to new hardware
> > being incompatible with older one, only
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
> take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
> otherwise make, now would be a good time.
The technical committee can't override the constitu
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
> > take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
> > otherwise make, now would
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The technical committee can't override the constitution (nor foundation
> documents) any more than you can.
Hmm.. actually, maybe that's not true in this case...
Given that the intent of the most recent GR was "Editorial Changes", and
Michael Banck writes:
> So even if the glibc functions might be documented in manpages in a
> satisfactory way, this is probably not true for the rest of the GNU
> packages.
I would disagree that even glibc functions are adequately documented
in man pages. To pick just one example, the mcheck()
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Social Contract now states:
> >
> > ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> > ] ...
> >
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > ma
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 16:25]:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The language of that GR might run something like: [...]
>
> Well, I'd second this, if it was put forth.
There is actually a draft for such a GR. However, I think it's better
to c
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> > achieve this this year.
> This means that we continue to deliver woody, which has more or less
> exactly the same defects. If you really require a GR to pre
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:40:08 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Furthermore, the exceptions till now was not due to the fact that
>> we don't require documentation to be free (quite contrary, there
>> was a consensus on d-legal about
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The Social Contract now states:
>> >
>> > ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free ] ...
>> >
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:59:53 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
>> take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
>> otherwise mak
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:16:09 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The technical committee can't override the constitution (nor
>> foundation documents) any more than you can.
> Hmm.. actually, maybe that's not true in this
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
> I can justify
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No, the exception is _entirely_ due to the fact that we don't
> > require documentation, data, or firmware to be free. And
> > debian-legal is not a delegated body, and is unable to make
> > decisions of their own that have any r
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would strongly disagree. The developers can certainly pass
> another GR, but the tech ctte should not override the wishes of the
> develoeprs when this is not a technical issue at hand.
The technical committee is empower
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Expanding the powers of the tech-ctte for convenience, or the
> belief that the developers did not know what they were doing, or to
> take a short cut to a GR, is not acceptable.
Ok, thanks.
I hadn't thought through the i
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:28:11PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> >At this point, with 244 ballots resulting in 216 votes from
> > 214 developers, "Choice 1: Change the Social Contract [3:1 majority
> > needed]" ha
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:27:14PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
> forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
> bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the co
> > As an aside... or as a possibly related issue, consider glibc -- here
> > is a piece of software which is licensed as free (though RMS might say
> > that the LGPL licensed components aren't as free as he'd like), but
> > which in practice is still distributed in almost-binary form (you can't
>
* Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
> **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't
> have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for
> fonts. In particular, the Truetype Bitstream Ver
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:23:51 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
> **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't
> have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for
> fonts. In par
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > No, the exception is _entirely_ due to the fact that we don't
>> > require documentation, data, or firmware to be free. And
>> > debian-legal is not a delegated body,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> More specifically, if glibc requires a binary component (a current
> version of the glibc binaries) for its source to be built, then glibc
> isn't distributable under the GPL.
I've heard that there are a couple of hundred other package
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It's been a long time, but I did hack on some fonts
> a long time ago and while it wasn't the most fun thing I could have
> sworn there was a free program available to do it..
Fonts are something of a black art. [Notice all the disc
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
> > **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't
> > have anything approaching the "preferred form fo
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > More specifically, if glibc requires a binary component (a current
> > version of the glibc binaries) for its source to be built, then glibc
> > isn't distributable under the GPL.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:16:23PM +0200, Michael Ban
* Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument
> > not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to
> > modify these fonts? It's been a long
On 26-Apr-04, 09:31 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The tally sheet makes interesting reading:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt
>
> Draw your own conclusions.
Sorry, you're going to have to spell out what you mean. The only
conclusion I can draw from
Removed Theodore Ts'o from the CC list, since he didn't ask to be CC'd.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument
> not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to
A similar argume
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
> **FONTS** from Debian,
Not all of them, we have quite a few METAFONT programs.
> The debian installer will also need to be rewritten to support
> obtaining fonts from non-free sources as w
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument
> not be used on JPEG's or PNG's?
For JPEGs? Sure, the argument applies to any lossy compression
format.
In the case of PNG, it depends on the image contents.
> Do we have *some
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A similar argument has been made. This is why I'm tending to think
> it's unreasonable to expect source for everything. I do think every
> *other* requirement (except for DFSG#2) applies to other data.
I've raised this argument as a reduction ad absur
"Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
> **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't
> have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for
> fonts.
Where are you quoted the words "prefe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL**
>> **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't
>> have anything approaching the "preferred form for modificatio
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where are you quoted the words "preferred form for modification" from?
>
> GPL
Of course, but that only applies to GPL'd documents. It is certainly
true that a bitmap font (unless it was created *as* a bitmap font
originally) can't be part of a GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>> It's the definition of "source code" that makes the most sense.
>
> We are not under an obligation to have a rigid definition of "source
> code".
Yes, this is one of our advantages (IMHO).
> But the DFSG, because it is not a license, need not w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I don't see a mess. Ted Ts'o tried to apply an inappropriate standard
> to the question of fonts, and got an absurd result. I think it was
> just a simple mistake. Ted's a really smart guy, and I think he just
> automatically substituted the GP
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Recently, there were some calls for such definitions, and lack of
> clear definitions was often put forward as an argument to stamp some
> practices as impractical. For example, treating Data and Programs
> differently.
We decided clearly that data an
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Once one realizes that, the problem evaporates (and with it, the
> > "current mess").
>
> Why do you think so? I'd still like to have some hinted non-METAFONT
> DFSG-compliant fonts. And I view the lack thereof an actual problem
> which has bothere
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Where are you quoted the words "preferred form for modification" from?
> >
> > GPL
>
> Of course, but that only applies to GPL'd documents.
The current context is "what is
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what definition are you suggesting is more relevant here?
"MU"
The alternative is no definition at all, and decide on a case-by-case
basis. I don't think that this will work in practice, partiallly
because debian-legal has no ultimate say on this is
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The DFSG says "The program must include source code." So for works
> which are programs, we know how to apply that.
>
> The new Social Contract makes clear that this is to apply to
> non-programs also. But how, since "source
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The language of that GR might run something like: In the past, we
> have had some disagreements between ourselves about what it is we're
> trying to do and what should go in a free distribution. We intend to
> fix those issues, going forwards, however to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the
> output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem
> with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there is similarly no
> problem with Truetype
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:51:22AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, what definition are you suggesting is more relevant here?
>
> "MU"
>
> The alternative is no definition at all, and decide on a case-by-case
> basis. I don't think that this will
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The current context is "what is the definition of the phrase 'source
> > code'?" -- and we take definitions wherever we find them.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:18:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure, but we shouldn't assume that any particular
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:20:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Which case are we speaking of, exactly?
Pick one.
--
Raul
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If we take "program" to mean "a sequence of instructions that a computer
> > can interpret and execute", then it's reasonable to consider a font file
> > as instructions on how to render characters in that font.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:21:28PM -0700
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the
> > > output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem
> > > with the METAFONT-generated
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:33:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Are you now
> in agreement that we did not need to change the Social Contract at
> all; and that *everything* that is made of bits is software?
That has always been my opinion.
--
Raul
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:35:02AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Jochen Voss]
> > By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in
> > "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"?
>
> Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
> people to believe that a controversi
At Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:47:58 -0400,
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > As an aside... or as a possibly related issue, consider glibc -- here
> > > is a piece of software which is licensed as free (though RMS might say
> > > that the LGPL licensed components aren't as free as he'd like), but
> > > which in pr
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Social Contract now states:
>
> ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> ] ...
>
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 07:10]:
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
> I can justify the policy
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
> things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
>
> This will result in the following problems:
>
> * important packages such as glibc will have no documentation
This should not be too bad given
[Jochen Voss]
> By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in
> "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"?
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't belie
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> than its license, right?
>
> Hence, every document released under the GNU FDL needs to be c
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> than its license, right?
No. There are other issues with the GFDL, of the more common "This
Martin Schulze wrote:
>Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
>are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
>than its license, right?
No, everything under the GFDL appears non-free.
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml di
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
> > in all cases
> It's good when this happens.
> > * debian-installer will need to be rewritten to support obtaining
> > non-fre
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
> > things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
> >
> > This will result in the following problems:
> >
> > * important packages
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
> Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
>
> What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
> the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7, I doubt
> it does.
You're s
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > * many pieces of hardware will not be supported by the Debian system
> > itself
> Since we already face this "problem" woody already due to new hardware
> being incompatible with older one, only the number will grow.
Joe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content such as
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:32:34PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
> >
> > What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
> > the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 Decembe
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > * many pieces of hardware will not be supported by the Debian system
> > > itself
> > Since we already face this "problem" woody already due to new hardware
> > being incompatible with older one, only
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
> take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
> otherwise make, now would be a good time.
The technical committee can't override the constitu
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
> > take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
> > otherwise make, now would
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The technical committee can't override the constitution (nor foundation
> documents) any more than you can.
Hmm.. actually, maybe that's not true in this case...
Given that the intent of the most recent GR was "Editorial Changes", and
Michael Banck writes:
> So even if the glibc functions might be documented in manpages in a
> satisfactory way, this is probably not true for the rest of the GNU
> packages.
I would disagree that even glibc functions are adequately documented
in man pages. To pick just one example, the mcheck()
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Social Contract now states:
> >
> > ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> > ] ...
> >
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > ma
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 16:25]:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The language of that GR might run something like: [...]
>
> Well, I'd second this, if it was put forth.
There is actually a draft for such a GR. However, I think it's better
to c
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> > achieve this this year.
> This means that we continue to deliver woody, which has more or less
> exactly the same defects. If you really require a GR to pre
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:40:08 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Furthermore, the exceptions till now was not due to the fact that
>> we don't require documentation to be free (quite contrary, there
>> was a consensus
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:07:12AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The Social Contract now states:
>> >
>> > ] 1. Debian will remain 100% free ] ...
>> >
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:59:53 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> So, if the technical committee would like to comment on this issue,
>> take the decision out of my hands, or overrule any decision I might
>> otherwise mak
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:16:09 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The technical committee can't override the constitution (nor
>> foundation documents) any more than you can.
> Hmm.. actually, maybe that's not true in this
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe
> I can justify
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No, the exception is _entirely_ due to the fact that we don't
> > require documentation, data, or firmware to be free. And
> > debian-legal is not a delegated body, and is unable to make
> > decisions of their own that have any r
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would strongly disagree. The developers can certainly pass
> another GR, but the tech ctte should not override the wishes of the
> develoeprs when this is not a technical issue at hand.
The technical committee is empower
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Expanding the powers of the tech-ctte for convenience, or the
> belief that the developers did not know what they were doing, or to
> take a short cut to a GR, is not acceptable.
Ok, thanks.
I hadn't thought through the i
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:28:11PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> >At this point, with 244 ballots resulting in 216 votes from
> > 214 developers, "Choice 1: Change the Social Contract [3:1 majority
> > needed]" ha
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:27:14PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I'm just following up to note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not
> forward to the technical committee (and apparently you won't get a
> bounce ...).
Hmm... this feature might be a contributing factor on some of the
complaints that the co
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
