Debian Etch,
> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.=20
> `
I second this proposal.
Daniel Ruoso
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
Qui, 2006-09-21 às 10:08 +0200, Loïc Minier escreveu:
> There's always None of the above, but I am pissed enough by the
> attitude of some developers that I want to reaffirm support for the
> elected DPL whatever he does to suppose Debian outside of the project.
>
> (The text of the proposal i
Qui, 2006-08-31 às 09:19 +0100, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> Qua, 2006-08-30 às 23:06 +0200, Frederik Schueler escreveu:
> > So, we propose this GR:
> >
> > 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> > community (Social Contract #4);
> >
s part of Debian Etch, without further conditions.
Seconded.
Daniel Ruoso
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
As I understand Debian's view on Free Software did not change, and as
the firmware split is, indeed, an unsolved question, I think a more
honest position would be to accept that we couldn't deal with the
firmware issue in the timeframe for etch.
As the question itself seems quite immature (in
Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
> grateful.
Hmmm... I
Em Qui, 2006-02-09 às 21:18 -0500, Christopher Martin escreveu:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG.
And so to remove it... If it's a judgement for one side, it's a
judgement for the other...
> Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 02:11 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> | Everything must be modifiable
I'm still not convinced GPL prevents that. You're still allowed to
rephrase the copyright,no-warrant,where-is-the-license notices and to
present it in a way that fits to your needs. It doesn't force you to
Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you
> would say that a license with such clause is non-free.
I still don't know why you think this GPL clause has something to do
with invariant sections...
GPL only says: "to pri
Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:42 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> What I wrote was the following: if your modifications solve some real
> need, not just your whims, then your modifications are usefull and
> freedom 3 gives you the right to distribute them.
It's quite hard to read that freedom 3 is mor
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 18:49 +, Stephen Gran escreveu:
> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> > > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> > > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would be
> > > GPL with
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 01:09 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa escreveu:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> > Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> > GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consi
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 12:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I must remeber that, in this case, you're not letting the user judge if
> > something fits or not to his needs.
> > This breaks freedom 1[1],
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:33 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > This was what I tried to show you, not the opposite. My interpretation
> > of DFSG3 is guided by freedom 1, which says "adapt it to your needs"
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
> > non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it,
> > therefore, it's a
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:00 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting
> the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that
> particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR.
Well, it has been argued
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:13 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker escreveu:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
> > buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, bu
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 20:12 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If the invariant sections are unreasonably long then I'd agree the
> document is non-free. However some developers object even short
> invariant sections.
It has nothing to do with the size of the invariant section (and indeed,
GFDL do
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane
in
Em Ter, 2006-01-31 às 16:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> invariant sections with offensive material give us a similar example
> -- documents that contain such invariant section would also be
> non-free.
The problem is using one thing as media for unrelated stuff. As most
people would just rem
Em Qua, 2006-01-25 às 10:35 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm escreveu:
> Some people want to have one big GR with all the options on it.
> Other people (like me) think it's better to have two separate GRs:
> * one to decide if GNU FDL is free or not and
> * one to decide how we should explain ou
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > If you do not have any access to my encrypted or "chmod -r" copy, then
> > I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
> Really. If you maintain a copy of a GF
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 20:30 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to
> > do
> > - to establish a position statement stating that
> > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was proble
Em Sex, 2005-12-09 às 00:49 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:24:52AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > There's a lot of personal information inside debian-private,
> There is? I got 36 of 494 messages (7%) for the month I did, with an
> additional 55 o
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> &
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 01:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I hope this is closer to a consensus...
> Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second class of people --
> those who we want to sign NDA'
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> >
Hi,
I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal
about the declassification.
In this discussion, two points were made clear to me:
1) It would be really nice to have the d-p archives available to those
who want to understand better how debian works, and from this
pers
Em Sex, 2005-12-02 às 21:16 +0100, Florian Weimer escreveu:
> * Daniel Ruoso:
> > In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
> > will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
> > significance made to the Debian Private Mailin
As dicussion follows, I decided to formalize a proposal for a real
declassification of the content on -private.
As I said before, if we're going to choose which material is made
public, we can't call it "declassification".
The main points are:
1) Everything except financial information about oth
Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be
Em Sáb, 2005-11-19 às 12:29 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > --
> > Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> > defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
Just to formalize what I've already said...
I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
against it is that people didn't expect to have it's private posts
revealed.
--
Thus, I propose that the Debi
Em Sex, 2005-11-18 às 16:09 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Pri
w (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
> Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
> one :)
I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
I cons
Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 12:08 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> I think the easiest way to do that is to adopt an approach similar to that
> of governments that deal with classified documents; that is by setting a
> specific time after which -private posts will be required to be considered
> for decla
For those who are tired of pressing page up/page down to understand the
listing... a s/Option \d/$candidates[$1]/ge is helpfull...
Branden Robinson defeats Mathew Garrett by ( 248 - 220) = 28 votes.
Anthony Towns defeats Mathew Garrett by ( 244 - 221) = 23 votes.
Mathew Garrett defeats Angus
Em Qua, 2005-03-09 às 17:07, Amaya escreveu:
> When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening,
> hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of
> gender issues.
I would like to remember everybody the mencal flamewar (one of the most
stupid flamewars I hav
Em Seg, 2005-02-28 às 06:29, Helen Faulkner escreveu:
> We would therefore like to call for suggestions for questions to be put
> to the candidates during the debate. We hope to be able to choose a set
> of questions which reflect the concerns and interests of Debian
> Developers in general.
Ok,
39 matches
Mail list logo
