Yes, by all means we should ignore the fake personas, Mr. Natural Linux,
whoever you are.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Natural Linux wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses given
> in the article?
>
> The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.
>
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 00:35 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together
> with the source of the Debian system ?
Have you considered the harm? It means that users can no longer assume
that whatever is in the source packages can be dis
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:53 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
> we reached, but it still a guideline.
> Consider:
> - we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
> - we have "RC" also on stable releases.
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
> > distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>
> This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess you mean in 'main'?
Debian is only free software. Non-free is distr
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
> temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
> practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
> the free software community".
On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 13:58 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:48:58AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > What do people think of a new vote regarding the status of firmware?
> > One of the options can probably be Peter Palfrader's proposal [1].
>
> I'm very much in favor of ha
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 21:07 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > 4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
> > file),
> > #483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
> > according to the maintainer)
>
> Of course it
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
> desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> > Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
> > say,
> > this would be a good time.
>
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> > your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> > think
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 16:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
> > you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the
> > Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
> > requires th
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting a powe
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 bett
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
> buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
> users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
> and potentially usi
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -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 the choices that chose to release.
> >
>
> I'm not ashamed at all; I
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
> options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
> is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
> should be assigned.
> I can only
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> requirements were s
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
> do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
> fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG p
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I guess the question is, staying in the arena of "100% Free", what if
> DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
> it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
> proprietary software in it? What
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> I worded that rather badly. You should imply "within acceptable terms of
> the DFSG" here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
> package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Ri
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> > > exhau
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> > work, and rejecting anything simpler.
>
> Ever hear
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:31 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I knew I haven't quote enough parts of DFSG:
>
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do
> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We hav
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
> list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
> that list?
I would be enti
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committe
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
> > of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
>
> That
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> redistributable firmware can belong
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> > the hardware for installation" as acceptable.
>
> I'm very glad that history has shown most develo
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
> > delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
> > to violate a foun
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
> solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
> at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
> releases with non-free s
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
> could also step up to th
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> >
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> ,
> | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
> `
>
> To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 03:12 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > And what exactly does this have to do with the technical committee?
>
> No idea. It looks like it all started with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and since you're still
> wondering about RC/RG bugs, I'm answering these questions.
It would be a
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 03:12 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I thought all RC bugs were supposed to have severity "serious" or
> > higher. Has that been changed?
>
> RC != RG.
Ah, well then there is no need to berat
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 02:46 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Actually, I'm very good about uploading fixes for RC bugs promptly.
> > The bugs I think you are referring to were marked severity
> > "important". Perh
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:33 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> But I would really prefer if you would fix your own packages instead of
> relaying on our BSPers.
Actually, I'm very good about uploading fixes for RC bugs promptly. The
bugs I think you are referring to were marked severity "important".
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:33 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I see; so there are no members of the technical committee who have
> > failed twice to vote?
>
> I'm not sure how not voting twice in a row makes someone a less
> important contributor by definition.
I see; so what number do you think w
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:13 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The creiteria can be more than just voting on issues -- look for
> > > numbe
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> All this replacement in favour of a better person sounds very
> nasty, mean, and likely to be highly subjective to me, and most
> organizations do not often throw people out while they are still
> performing their duties.
Of
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 00:41 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Oh, and we need a way to deal with the structural problem of questions
> > which get posed to tech-ctte and simply never answered at all. Suppose
> > the tech-ctte fails to answer a question in, oh, three months, the
> > entire members
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 11:40 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not presume to be omniscient. But I believe lack of time,
> which is reflected in lack of contribution to the debate on a topic,
> and, even worse, lack of participation in the voting effort, is
> definitely a root cau
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 23:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Neither is the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that
> > because it's likely there are better ways of doing things than the way
> > we're doing things now (ie, "though foo is th
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:53 +0200, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
> Le Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:50:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> >
> > > Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
> > > - first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
>
> Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
> - first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
> crazy licenses in a language that is not mine
No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload
it into the archive without review.
> - then I spe
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 15:47 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The DAMs, who did not follow their own procedure [...]
>
> I contacted Sven Luther directly with an offer to start a GR to rescind
> the decision and optionally do some other stuff. I've seen no reply.
>
"Matthias Urlichs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:53:35 +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> [ ] Choice 1: Re-affirm DPL, wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank
>> [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm DPL, do not endorse nor support his other projects
> and
>> [ ] Choice 1: Rec
Anthony Towns writes:
> I believe that distributing firmware written in chunks of hex is in
> compliance with the GPL, and repetition of your arguments isn't going
> to change that belief.
Do you really think that the GPL contains an exception for firmware
blobs? Or that the GPL doesn't mean wh
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 have a vote
power over the actions of the DPL?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
> ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
> the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
> exchange, and assume that the sponsors a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
> mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
> section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
> are clear about their intent.
Right, s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
It seems to me as if what happened was:
You thought the "preamble" was rationale and not part of the
resolution proper; but the proposer said "no, that was an important
part of the resolu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about
> what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it
> currently stands. The proposal is only th
I want to issue a somewhat blanket apology; I'm trying to get better,
but I do so only in fits and starts.
In my posts about the controversial etch/drivers/freeness issue, I
crossed the line more than once into unhelpful and unreflective
posts. I am sorry, and if you were hurt or offended by the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said
>> to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the
>>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
> not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even an
> idea that the majority of developers agree with, and Joey Hess has pointed
> out to us reasons why
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
>> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
>> transla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Sep 07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
>> > This is what matters.
>> What is your evidence of this?
> My e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
> This is what matters.
What is your evidence of this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
>> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
>&
Anthony Towns writes:
> As best I can see, our users expect us to release etch soon rather than
> either of the approaches to fixing that that have been mooted so far
> (drop drivers or delay etch), and I don't believe we can fairly say
> we're putting the needs of our users (or free software) fi
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
> users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do w
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
>> work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote fo
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Point 2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution is relevant here. Under the Debian
> Constitution, you have no grounds for expecting the d-i team to work on
> this on your preferred time scale. If you want to get work done that
> other people have not completed
Anthony Towns writes:
> 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 do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
kernel free software?
We j
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation. It
> wasn't easy and we couldn't make it in time for sarge, but we can make
> it in time for etch. For etch, we
Anthony Towns writes:
> We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
> logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
> the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian
> Constitution.
What? Are you declaring now that we will
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> mindlessly following their idea of the DFSG.
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not adequate
> as an immediate solution to this problem because separating the firmware
> from the packages that currently contain it is hard and needs development
> and because d-i currently ca
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it would be part of a driver aimed at driving the main cpu, yes, it is
> not a peripheral processor, but the role played by the microcode is peripheral
> to the main flow of the kernel code.
Do you really not see why this is hopelessly vague?
>>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Microcode for the main processor does not match (2) or (3). So no,
>> there is no obvious likeness between microcode for the main processor
>> and the "rest of the stuff".
>
> Microcode does run in a lower level of the cpu than the main code, as thus you
Jacob Hallen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My personal experience is that the larger the company, the smaller the
> interest in change will be and they will only change when outside pressure
> forces them to. This leads me to believe that the quickest way to a future
> where we can distribute f
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope, i am not sure we have such microcode in the kernel tree. It certainly
> fits the same category as the rest of the stuff, and i think the above
> identifies perfectly which firmware blobs we are speakign about.
Huh? Microcode for the main processor
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. The "sourceless firmware blobs" mentioned in this GR, are identified as
> those programs or register dumps or fpga config files, which are uploaded to a
> peripheral processor, and are part of a linux kernel driver in some way,
> usually an array of ch
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So how do I know whether something is "firmware" instead of just
>> ordinary sourceless code?
>
> Ah, well, i would say that the definition you search here are :
>
> hexdump sourceless blobs which are uploaded to a peripheral device.
So you would say t
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I don't think it's a 3:1 issue. We're not changing our goals, only
> clarifying the timeline and acknowledging that the etch timeframe is too
> short for us to reach this goal.
I don't believe it. We already clarified the timeline, and created a
p
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems to me that this GR is unacceptable in this form because it
>> does not give an adequate definition of firmware, and people seem to
>> mean many different things by it.
>
> Well, in this case, firmware is clearly the firmware blobs actually into t
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:41:00PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Would you, or someone else, mind pointing out some examples of firmware
>> > with sou
Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 is not yet finally sorted out;
> 3. We give priorit
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you, or someone else, mind pointing out some examples of firmware
> with source? Preferrably with some of the breadth you refer to above? I
> understand firmware in concept, but beyond seeing it as a binary blob I've
> not really come seriously in
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
> the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
> should or should not be considered a "program", so I think that's begging
> the question.
However,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is that the firmware is all the software and other softwarish
> information which the vendor provides to make use of the board he sells you.
I see. If I buy a standard-issue Dell computer, then Windows is
firmware, right? (Dell does provide it,
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In cases like hte NLSU thingy, the firmware goes to include the whole linux +
> userland stack on top of whatever they use for booting, since it is held in
> the flash of the board.
Wow. I thought that "doesn't run on the main CPU" was entirely
indefensi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Notice that the bios or other firmware used on most machines today is also
> refered as firmware. The original definition is, i believe, any kind of code
> provided by the vendor of said device, and on which he has full control, so
> firmware was non-free
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this amendment.
> The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting an exception nor
> redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a latent definition of
> "programs" that has guide
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program.
I am bothered that there is never a definition of "firmware" here. It
seems to me that if you gave one, it would be something like:
"firm
I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
Suppose we had in our possession the source code and an assembler for
it. Surely then it would be obviously a program.
thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:50 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
>> > "T
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 source code and compiled
> code together on at least one mac
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:20:19PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> If you were elected tomorrow as DPL, and could only pick one thing about
>> Debian to change, what would it be?
>
> Make our mailinglists an enjoyable place for technical discussio
Anthony Towns writes:
> If I can only pick the things that're directly achievable, I'll just
> go with getting the momentum back -- ie, doing cool things quickly and
> regularly, no matter what they are.
What are some of the organizational or institutional factors which you
think keep us from do
Anthony Towns writes:
> If I could pick /anything/, it'd be to make Debian suddenly 100% fun
> for everyone involved.
Yeah, I'm with you!
Can you outline perhaps some of the things you think that keep it from
being 100% fun, and what the DPL can do to help them?
I'm interested here both in ans
Ted Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the other DPL candidates, especially Steve McIntyre who has been
> pussy-footing around this issue, should stand forward and say clearly
> where they stand on the issue of expelling developers; what is a just
> case for expulsion? Be really clear
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I never personally replied to Joey's mail about the next point
> release explicitly saying that fixing sudo was a pre-depends, and I
> apologise for that.
You're not a DPL candidate, and if this question is relevant at all,
it's relevant to DPL candid
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the
> GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not
> delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
> own comments to them".
A patched ver
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source code.
>> Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute your 1KB
>> chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains t
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
> clauses, and never was. in fact, convenienc
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
> has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about "a
new practical problem". If you aren't interested in the
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
> code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
> capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> license) to control.
This is hardly true. The GFDL says you must transmit the original
Japanese text in the ca
1 - 100 of 947 matches
Mail list logo
