On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?
Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?
Many of us (myself included) don't like non-free but pragmatism
On 2004-02-23 14:37:35 + Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
IMO it will be decided by simple evolution. When everything that
users want
to
do can be done with software in main, then there won't be the
incentive for
developers to carry on maintaining packages in non-free.
I th
On 2004-02-23 16:21:29 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I suppose that Sean's comment was in light of both ATI and NVidia,
being
the two major graphic card vendors out there, decision to no more
provide documentation for their recent graphic card, thus meaning the
death of 3D suppo
On 2004-02-23 19:57:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, if you manage to persuade those players, and a bunch of other
binary-only driver writers, to free their stuff, more power to you,
[...]
Given your previous comments about the unicorn device and your role
with XFree86,
On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
"who judges" is a trivially easy question to answer: "we all do".
when n
I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
reasons that follow.
On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
First, it allows us to provide useful packages that we could not
otherwise
provide.
It also reduces the demand for developers to encourage and help
On 2004-02-24 13:48:22 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
It does not really seem healthy for the Debian operating system
development
to use its facilities to help develop software that cannot be part
of the
Debian operating system.
Oh ? Please tell me how i
On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling something such in another mail ?
Aren't we in the discussion per
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, but i think it is not a health problem, not a dissease, at
worst a
mild disconfort. I guess it is not even noticeable.
Discomfort can be a health problem. I don't think I called it a
disease.
Err, my anecdotes are
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating "lack of
On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
This
amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
or that the amende
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you measure "increased demand"?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that "In the future,
we
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not wor
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of softwa
On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew that
an amendment should say if it deletes, because your
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment abo
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include "using development tools provided by the
project").
I think
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
"go". In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not
On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
Are you basing that on anything you put on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 as "The actual text of the
amendment"?
[...]
It did seem
On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to
indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free
section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment
to non-free and co
On 2004-02-26 18:11:27 + Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It also fits the English-language meaning better.
How? We can have amendments that don't delete the entire text of a
proposal. However, if I read A.3 right, there does seem to be a
limitation in the current vote system
On 2004-02-26 19:22:41 + Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sounds good to me. Care to do the sed job on the constitution and
write up
the proposal for seconds?
Please don't. Amendments need not delete the entire proposal text. It
would make "small bugfix" amendments a lot longe
On 2004-02-26 20:48:25 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Is the HOWTO the
Secretary's interpretation/decision?
Unfortunately, no. The HOWTO has not been updated to keep up
with the recent changes in the constitution.
Which package gets bug reports about that? ww
On 2004-02-29 04:13:12 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This is a proposed draft of the ballot for this vote.
Comments solicited.
One of the proposers or seconders should draft the ballot. (A.2.3)
[ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free non-free
"Paris in
On 2004-03-03 07:12:40 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
However, I'm sympathetic to RMS having been injured, and I'm
sympathetic
to Eben Moglen having to work overtime to counter the outrageous FUD
and
untruths being spewed by SCO and its shadowy partners.
Hrm, emails like
On 2004-03-03 15:46:59 + Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
months? How much l
On 2004-03-04 09:22:00 + Massimo Coletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Removing the non-free section will narrow the perspective of the Linux
world offered by Debian, and somehow limit a degree of freedom
currently
available for Debian users.
I think you have misunderstood the proposed GR.
On 2004-03-04 11:46:14 + Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's an old argument, and it's not going to be more true just
because it is repeated. Most users _can_ make the difference between
Debian and non-free.
If it's so old, do we have any good numbers on it, or are both views
On 2004-03-04 15:06:30 + Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040304 15:40]:
On 2004-03-04 11:46:14 + Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's an old argument, and it's not going to be more true just
because it is repe
On 2004-03-04 18:30:48 + Remi Vanicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fortunately, there is enough time to challenge more people forgetting
that some of our user need non-free driver to install some hardware on
their computer, and that without a non-free replacement, we are
forgetting them and th
On 2004-03-05 14:28:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:03:41PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
I'd say those users need better hardware rather than non-free
drivers.
Well, this would be problematic for people trying to install debian on
preexistant h
On 2004-03-05 15:25:04 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would be really interested in your response to the part of my post
you
silently skipped [...]
I think you are just trolling and trying to make me restate past
messages when I have no new data. I will reply and watch wheth
On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
that
that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
their licence. [...]
Not one of mine. I'm not sure what effect it has on that, but I
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I
filed bug #221761 after a debian-legal discussion pointed it out.
I find it hard to track down bu
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
#include
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into th
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th
December.
elfutils is not an example of remova
On 2004-03-08 12:28:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, they care only about licencing, and conflictive relationship
with
upstream, not about
Just looking at very recent past, debian-legal contributors have had
constructive discussions with people from the JasPer, Mozilla
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
polite to RMS".
That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to y
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) wo
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
polite to
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixin
On 2004-03-08 14:12:12 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from
branden,
where he all but tol
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do we require debian developers to have ADSL now?
On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
If you mean reverse-engineering the devices, I thin
On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
Aren't you already? ;-)
Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
would have some weight.
If you currently threaten your upstreams wi
On 2004-03-08 14:49:28 + Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think
you should help to fix that bug [...]
Ah the old "every person who has a pr
On 2004-03-08 15:36:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
you will be unable to distribute *your* packages once non-free
vanishes?
Well, this is what the non-free removal proponent tell me i should do,
is it not ?
It's
On 2004-03-08 17:05:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example
?
If the Suffield drop GR has passed, would non-free packages count as
"related to the project"?
Yeah, naturally. Unless you want to remove the non-free main
On 2004-03-09 06:07:36 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would gladly have seen a ballot of the like of :
A) drop non-free, do not create non-free.org, stop any relationship
with non-free related .debs.
B) drop non-free and create non-free.org
Would a GR that tried to c
On 2004-03-09 07:20:34 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thomas, for your information, until yesterday or so, i never have seen
any compromise from the drop non-free folk.
Why is that? Because Sven wouldn't discuss compromise! Supporters of
Suffield's drop GR cannot reach a compro
On 2004-03-09 11:14:19 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, but i also saw nobody on the other side engage with me on this
issue,
As I posted, you rebuffed attempts to open discussion in public. I
remember discussing some of it with you, on- and off-list, but nothing
substanti
On 2004-03-09 16:02:22 + Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] I cannot remember any user (not DDs/NMs) having real issues
with seeing non-free in the Debian FTP space.
Short memory. Don't some FSF machines use Debian? Maybe you don't care
about that user, or consider their proble
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me:
On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte
has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that
upto
now, nobody cared enough t
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, "Swears like a sailor" Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems
with
Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". [...]
Acutally, it seems common that debian list subscr
On 2004-03-11 08:24:49 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to
like
(swearing) to the status of Universal Truth
I suspect far more people dislike swearing. Subscribers are even asked
not to use foul language on http
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things
unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread
is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems.
Is it really signifi
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without
causing
problems.
Is it
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of
quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation
for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty
in matching.
Having just
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my m
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the
package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer
that it's not worth keeping around.
Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing o
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
ignore
the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with
apparent replac
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems reasonable to ask
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
much
doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn'
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software
just because
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
being
silly.
For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig.
For o
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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 no-one is looking.
Like "normally"
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is n
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything
beyond "buh". Long time to be stunned, t
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for del
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fix
On 2004-04-28 04:26:53 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't believe, from following this list, that the reason
the previous GR failed to be fixed was because the discussion period
was
cut short in the midst of serious progress.
Irrelevant. The previous GR was discussed for
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list
of
ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here.
You are not interested in an
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate
them,
given your stated view.
Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as
w
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are
not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully.
The problems with making a distinction of "not programs" has been
covered on -legal in the past
On 2004-04-29 10:29:12 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our official logo (that with the bottle) is non-free, because it is
not free useable. (Failing DFSG #1, 4, 5, 6, 8.)
The "open use" logo is non-free because the copyright licence
restricts field of use (rather pointless to
On 2004-05-06 17:38:17 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PHP License, version 3.0
Copyright (c) 1999 - 2002 The PHP Group. All rights reserved.
You may like to fix your autoresponder, PHP.net
It seems my previous post got lost or ignored. Retrying:
Anthony Towns wrote:
> * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
>that list that are three or more years old, with the following
>exceptions:
I don't think we have any moral right and barely any legal stand
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
> remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
> procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
> either past or future, and the author of the message has a
Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is important historical information hidden in the debian-private
> archives. Like the reasons why the social contract and the DFSG are
> the way they are.
I believe that is a small proportion of the messages and does not
justify the proposed disclos
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I see a glaring contradiction here: on the one hand, the opening
> paragraph talks about publishing selected posts: those with historical
> or ongoing significance, but the rest of the GR talks about
> declassifying *all* emails with stated exceptions. [...]
I d
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:00:42PM +, Moray Allan wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better for people interested in opening the -private
> > archives to try a pure opt-in approach first? (Which wouldn't require
> > any change to current policies.)
>
> If most of the archive sho
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I also worry about security reports that include personally
> identifiable information, trade (business?) secrets or copyrighted
> material, which are not really relevant to the bug itself, but were
> sent in with the expectation that this was a typical vendor s
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] And as you can see from the proposal, we all
> have a veto on the declassification [...]
There is no *veto* in the proposal. There is a limited opportunity
for the message author to object and otherwise a GR can be used
- which would be possible anyway if
documented, the GNU
General Public License (for a copyleft license) or a BSD- or
MIT/X11-style license (for a non-copyleft license).
> [...] I've put the above draft on the wiki
> [3] so people can tweak it.
> [3] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement
That page says it is immutable.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
Adeodato Sim=C3=B3
>Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
>its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
>License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
>Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
>
Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
> imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place:
> =C2=ABHey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool
> program and releasing it under
At the time of writing, I've not seen these two answered:
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Has Debian explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
> non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use? If so, which GR(s) has
> (have) established this?
I think so. Amongst others, see
http://r
obably indicate we're still too divided on this matter.
BTW, I disagree with the suggestion that reversing the release team
decision should be fast-tracked to appear before the position. We
should find our position and then act appropriately, if possible.
Thanks for reading,
--
MJ Ray - pers
Michael wrote:
> > I'm thinking of something like
> > http://people.debian.org/~mjr/gr-fdl.txt (24k, only based on originals)
>
> Uhm, this is a joke, right?
No. I'll thank you to get better at spotting jokes. I expect there are
others who agree with aj's text on some points and adeodato's on ano
Craig Sanders wrote:
> as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several
> other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require
> modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example.
As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
> > imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
> > which can be modified (such as the
Roger Leigh
> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...]
You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2]
to the point
101 - 200 of 755 matches
Mail list logo
