On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people
want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as
a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will
change, and we'll have this
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance.
I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that
gNewSense already
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
even one of them.
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would personally prefer
for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things
on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...]
I would
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the
* Mike Hommey:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
even one
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of
Johannes Wiedersich j...@ph.tum.de wrote: [...]
The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from
that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they
are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1].
I like this suggestion.
Thiemo Seufer t...@networkno.de wrote:
Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...]
hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this
area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should
^
.. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others.
Just
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote:
Sometimes we don't include documentation not because it is sourceless
(at any rate, what is the source for a .txt file but that file
itself?), but because it is simply non-free. Think about the RFCs:
They are not legally modifiable. and there is _good_ reason
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much:
we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and
I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch
of free stuff
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote:
As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in
fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others,
Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the
FSF),
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to
the promise only in
- Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it
cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the
social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden.
I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a
Hi,
Sven asked me to forward this message to the list. Since it does not
contain any of the vitriol for which he was expelled from the project,
and since it does contain some valid points on the discussion in
question, I decided to comply with his request.
I'd like to say, though, that this does
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
requirements.
(...)
So, yes, that does require interpretation.
Actually I said it does
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can
misjudge it...
That's great.
If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a
more suitable version?
I'm happy to delay the release
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance.
* Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote:
FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is
there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal
importance, there
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the
cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more
and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers
work together better,
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide
* Gerfried Fuchs:
For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object
to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute
proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package,
or by linking them in some way).
But it is. The web browser does run
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mike Hommey:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer
f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
* Theodore Tso:
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
options exist.
Absolutely agreed with this
[switching to -vote only, since this is about the process of voting]
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
order to get it voted on?
Because it can potentially
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much:
I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented
over doctrinal disputes
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
But the way you wrote in 4 as we will make any private discussions
publically available at the earliest opportunity. is problematic since
it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along we will make
any private discussions
36 matches
Mail list logo
