Adeodato Simó
> Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
> you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?
Neither.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
craig
> the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
>
> case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
> user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work +
> patch file. very inconvenient.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section does
> not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's *INVARIANT*).
> It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever point the 'patcher'
> wants to make. the new section may
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> [...] If I decide to create a package
> with some essays from www.gnu.org that package would be free acording
> to FSF and non-free acording to DFSG (because these essays are not
> modifiable). I have no problems with that.
FSF would probably call it free documentation or
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
> > to add a function that
Anton Zinoviev write:
>Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
>what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
>program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
>
> Notice that I intentionaly mentioned both software program and
> d
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> > worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> > the FDL ones. [...]
>
> Er, we consider the 4 clause BSD license a free lic
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
> > I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
>
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
> sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
> of paper.
Any work requiring waste of paper on that relative scale is
not only not free as in freedom, but unethical and non
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However the DFSG is there to juge if a license is free or not and these
> guidlines must be used to juge the freeness of a software. A lot of
> zealots in this list just invent way to reject licenses they don't like
> even if these complies with the DFSG; or invent so
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What's specifically is inappropriate about publically stating one's
> opinion of a candidate, whether positive or negative, after being
> nominated for the position?
IMO it was inappropriate because it was mostly a personal attack
and said nothing about why to
Please, if you email questions of the candidates, put something in
the subject line to indicate the subject(s) of the questions. It
will make it much easier to find them in the archives.
Last year, we had very helpful debate summaries posted by
David Schmitt(?) which helped solve this confusion, b
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > If you had to summarize your platform with 3 keywords, what would they be ?
>
> Communication, communication, communication.
Would you prefer the notoriety of "education, education, education"
or the notoriet
The process to expel a developer is described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html
I am not sure whether all expulsion attempts get far enough
to be recorded on -private or -project as described in
the process, but DDs can check for traffic on those lists
involving
Anthony Towns wrote:
[+2 questions from other people]
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:39:52PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Why does it need to happen directly after r2?
[+3 questions]
>
> Uh, what the hell?
[+2 things that might be answers]
> This is why I hate trying to talk about things on Deb
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 1. The process "is intended as a last resort" - what steps would
> >you take before initiating or supporting it yourself?
>
> [...] As such, I would al
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's non-technical
> >socio-religious views in the reasoning for or against expulsion?
>
> I sure hope you are n
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (As a reference point, I am no longer on any significant Debian mailing
> lists other than -vote because I am sick of people who behave in an
> anti-social manner towards each other. Allowing people to behave as they
> wish to has a direct cost to the project
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you believe that anyone in Debian has ever been discriminated against
> for socio-religious views that had no impact on their ability to work in
> the project?
Given the number of people in Debian, it seems probable that
one will have experienced religiou
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >1. The process "is intended as a last resort" - what steps would
> > you take before initiating or supporting it yourself?
>
> I would need to convince myself of
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> pe, 2006-03-10 kello 02:52 +0000, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Do you believe that anyone in Debian has ever been discriminated against
> > > for socio-religious views that had no impact
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You said:
ITYM wrote. Any voices you heard reading debian-vote to you today
were not mine. If you can't distinguish between me and the voices
you hear reading debian-vote to you, please ask your doctor.
> >> > 2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someon
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Say (said, saying, says):
> 2. To express in words: Say what's on your mind.
> 3. a. To state as one's opinion or judgment; declare: I say let's eat out.
> b. To state as a determination of fact: It's hard to say who is
> right in this matter..
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html
>
> For those who can't read -private, Andrew's claims are untrue -
> objections are voiced due to the manner in which Andrew voiced his
> beliefs, not the beliefs in and of themselves.
The bel
"Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> During the debate you made a number of assertions about a number of
> others running for DPL, specificly alleging that you had specific
> evidence of religious discrimination.
>
> After specificly accusing Jeroen van Wolffelaar of this he asked for
> speci
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No need - Mark Ray did so earlier in the week.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00269.html
was disliked, because there was a sudden surge in posting
frequency, which many people do when ann
Anthony Towns
> GFDL (relating to the "can't chmod a document" and "can't distribute a
> transparent copy separately") -- it might be fair to be strict about that,
> because we've been bitten by not being strict in the past on issues such
> as the pine license, but otoh, there's been reported writ
On 1916-3.820-5.730(4sf), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[So a GR can state that pi=3,]
> No.
>
> Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
The representation of maths is not much more exact than language
in some ways. Two half-daft observations from a st
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
> > "The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
> > it is still possible to distribute the sourc
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This formulation is better in one sense, as it avoids licenses being too
> restrictive. However it tangles the DFSG with the current media we are
> distributing our packages on, and I don't like that much.
It seems likely that we will have an online archive a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 4/7/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> > prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
> > question in this, and nobody
Raul Miller wrote:
> I was not convinced by this "rebuttal".
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
> Furthermore, I'm not sure what issue(s) you feel references are needed
> on.
The draft
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
> > repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
> > annoyed by the lost time.
>
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 4/12/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>> I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> > > >>> prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
&g
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps a formulation like
>
> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
> organization that has been vetted by the DPL to be allowed to
> handle such th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How about simplifying the strictures in the constitution to
> something like this:
That seems a substantial power transfer to the DPL, with the related loss
of scrutiny. It may not cause problems now, but it's quite a bet on
the financial prudence o
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Money means "currency". Like with currency, plurals are not used to indicate
> the amount of the currency. However, when when talking about multiple types
> of currency (multiple types of money) you do use the plural.
Not necessarily multiple currencies, but any
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err, Would Evil DPL actually pay that much attention to the
> constitution?
Probably not, but who would hold them to the constitution?
Or would the constitution be rewritten to match DPL actions
after they've been actively working against its
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The DPL could 'unvet' the first one and then vet the second one. [...]
Even if it was vetted and failed, it was still vetted, unless there's
time travel. I suggest that the vetting limit wouldn't make sense.
> The point of the exercise is to avoid hav
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Which countries can have no suitable organisations?
>
> I don't know, but I don't want to gamble on it not being an issue.
I've looked into this i
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In some countries like e.g. Austria it is quite difficult to get the
> tax-deductable status for donations while it is fairly easy to get tax
> exumption for them.
Then I think going tax-exempt would be adequate in Austria.
> If a company holds money o
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> + It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
> + trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of
> + such assets, as an example:
It seems strange to use a conditional with no condition.
I suggest:
+ It is preferre
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it would be better to formulate a requirement that it must be a
> not-for-profit organization, but leave the choice on the tax-beneficial
> status to the people doing the actual organization.
I think there are many benefits from being a tax-beneficial
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> bad re-interpretations to make it mean something else, like the attempt
> to make only the SPI be able to hold assets for Debian that we've seen
> in recent times, which makes use of an ambiguity in the wording of the
> constitution.)
I agree that the constitut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> propose the following amendment to the Debian constitution. This had
> been discussed at length last month, and suggestions and discussion
> have died down. I would like to seek seconds for this proposal at
>
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> + It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
> > >> + trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the hand
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should
> undertake reasonable obligations for the handling of such
> assets.
>
> As an example of best practice at the time of writing,
> SPI have made the following undertakings:
>
>
Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [... Debian auditor ...]
> I'm just wondering a bit if this all is a good idea. [...]
> don't really understand why this is immediately translated into building a
> bureaucracy around it. [...]
As I understand it, the oversight has been provided until now by
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
> refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anyt
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] This GR is a position statement, not an amendment to the
> foundation documents, which means a couple of things. [...]
As I understand it, this proposal seeks to exempt parts of debian
from part of the DFSG. Why is that not an amendment to the foundation
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Our voting mechanism is *clone*proof, preventing multiple identical ballot
> options from influencing the outcome; but it's not proofed against influence
> by toothless variants that will inevitably appeal to a broader constituency
> because they sa
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted from wonderland.linux.it:
> No, it's because they really do not believe this to be a problem, like
> everybody else but a few people polluting debian-legal.
I note that several of those supporting the current source code
requirement for main don't post much
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] "de Raadt firmware" I have found:
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1098992287663.html
> And http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550:
Thanks. (Neither were in the OpenBSD list archives...)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mj
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
> the FSF
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
>
> Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, I would strongly object. I am very annoyed at people who consider
> some GPL'ed drivers to be contrib material because the hardware they
> support stores its proprietary firmware on the system hard disk instead
> of on a flash eeprom chip like some other hard
Anthony Towns
> Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
> prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
> Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
> Delay the release of etch (so that we can support18%
> loading firmware from no
Anthony Towns wrote:
> While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> 100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your lic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is my (slightly rushed) write-up of a non-free-hw compromise
option. Please second it if you think it should appear on the vote.
This amendment to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> removes
the rationale and "therefore", replaces "authors" in point 2 with
"
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >> Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
> >> Option 1 Release etch on time
> >> Option 3 Support hardware that requires
Anthony Towns wrote
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> > by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
> You might like to consider replying to:
> Subject: Re: Pr
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, i think we are going to have too many options on that ballot, i think we
> should do some rationalizing at some point, and keep only a few which will
> represent most opinions, and work on polishing their wordings instead of
> everyone proposing their pet pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) wrote:
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>^
> > without f
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Heh, a FAQ on a website overriding the clear and explicit wording from the
> license itself ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")? Who
> would've thought...
What the FSF means by verbatim
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> > without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
> > images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free Software
> >Guidelines except guideline 2 (Source Code), or an archive section/area
> >with equivalent requirements.
> This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exc
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I would otherwise support a similar amendment, but I
> >> in this form I consider it harmful to our cause.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Prove it.
> I should prove that Debian distributing illegal proprietary kernel
> drivers would really be a bad idea?
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 =E0 17:28 -0400, Joey Hess a =E9crit :
> > AIUI, I would word your proposal something like this:
> >=20
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> >without free firmware, the Debian installation media i
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
That's not entirely true, according to
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
Relative to sarge, 13 new sourceless-firmware-contaminated files have
found their way int
> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[more files and...]
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
>
> Are those not those which have gone in the firmware-nonfree or whatever
> package which was uploaded yesterday to non-free ?
Possibly. That list was dated "August 31, 2006".
Thanks,
--
MJR
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >No, prove that you would otherwise support a similar amendment.
> I am not sure how this can be done. [...]
By putting one forward, for example.
Actions, not hollow promises. After all, my proposal is essentially
"a new archiv
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ warning: quote attribution missing ]
> >> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
> >> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
> >> didn't quote were in the proposal.
> >What d
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Now we have it flat out: Steve thinks perhaps we will simply never
> > bring the kernel packages into compliance with the DFSG.
>
> I demand that you retract this slanderous r
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any
> comments need to be in fast, though.
Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please?
"Amend the constitution" is not descriptive enough.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://pe
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "Amend the
> > constitution" is not descriptive enough.
>
> Since t
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Apparently, the proposer and the secretary both felt that the
> form on the ballot was OK -- or do you have a better idea what the
> proposer of the GR wanted? [...]
If only the proposer and secretary need to be happy with the ballot,
.]
> Some statistics to give an indication (this is based on my local mailbox
> of d-vote for Aug/Sept for subjects containing "source" or "firmware" with
> only some irrelevant subthreads deleted).
> In total 465 posts from approximately 80 different persons. [...]
>
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> officially request funding? NO.
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
> dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
As I stated elsewhere (and was ignored by AJ at least once), I am not
particularly troubled by paying the RMs, but - as I understand it
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 13:04, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > > to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that could be
> >
> > Please, drop the scare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by ou
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> > against some developers' opinions?
>
> Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers h
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> > against some developers' opinions?
>
> If the DPL can't take decisi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First resolution `We disapprove of dunc-tank':
> -8<-
> BACKGROUND
>
> 1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested
> funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second the following amendment:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
| firmware issue; however, it i
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The work is anthropomorphized there; [...]
Please don't anthropomorphise the work. It hates that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote with
> all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
> apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
> 2006/004 being the first) with only the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
> clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
> works distributed in main.
Adjective holy misplacement, Batman! Rather, it changed the social
contract to make the DFSG
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:57:33 +0300, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for
> > this violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future.
>
> Nice. But the only one who can sue
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
[...]
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That is not a second of Frederik's proposal. Does it still count?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow ht
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi debian-legal, ...
I've trimmed -release, as luk suggested it's unwelcome there.
> [...] The real problem is that there are a certain
> amount of firmware in the kernel, embedded in the drivers, which have no
> license notice whatsoever, and as thus fall
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Sure. However it makes no sense having a discussion about individual blobs
> or, even worse, about whether these are distributable under the GPL at all.
> As Steve has pointed out repeatedly, that last responsibility lies with the
> maintainer (the kerne
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Frederik's proposal as amended by Manoj has been seconded by:
> > [...]
> > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That is not a s
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your
> recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution.
Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse public?
Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse even sent?
How about
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == START OF PROPOSAL ==
> Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
> design binary data encoded as hexdumps in some of the linux kernel drivers and
s/design/&ates/ ; s/en
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mmm, i think it is important to mention the fact that they are hexdumps, since
> all of them are, no ?
If all of them are, then mention it if you like, but why is it important
what form the binaries are in?
> Why should we delete those. Since in these age
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I still don't see what d-vote has to do with this. Distributability IMO is
> an issue that is the province of package maintainer and FTP masters.
Given a GR can reverse decisions of FTP masters about it, which is a sort
of negative instruction, I think
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] And how about
> your offering him to proofread the ballot? Or just doing it, since he
> actually posted it in public for that very purpose?
I thought it was posted so that everyone could see the Secretary had
shown it to the Propo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:43:03 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...] And how about your offering him to proofread the ballot? Or
&
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:59:38 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Commentary is one thing. Hysterical overreaction to the magnitude
> >> of
201 - 300 of 755 matches
Mail list logo
