** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > > that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd
> > > that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
>
> [snip]
> > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> >
> > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> > the Debian Project?
> Because many
** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
[snip]
> > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
>
> Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> the Debian Project?
Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free softwar
** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
[snip]
> > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
>
> Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
> the Debian Project?
Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free softwa
Le Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Great. I completely share your opinion.
That's my second mail in this tread. I wish everybody could do like me ...
the thread can't be followed unless you
Le Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Great. I completely share your opinion.
That's my second mail in this tread. I wish everybody could do like me ...
the thread can't be followed unless yo
> They neglect to mention that Debian is already highly successful at
> encouraging non-free software authors to relicense, that distributing
> software as non-free rather than part of the distribution itself is
> already a successful disincentive, that often it is the maintainer of the
> non-free
> They neglect to mention that Debian is already highly successful at
> encouraging non-free software authors to relicense, that distributing
> software as non-free rather than part of the distribution itself is
> already a successful disincentive, that often it is the maintainer of the
> non-free
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:47:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> This is a valid point and regardless of the outcome of this resolution I
> am almost insistant that we should also resolve to make the Social
> Contract and DFSG require a 3:1 vote to alter, just like the constitution
> on the grounds
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> [please CC: any replies to me]
Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at
you, Joy.)
> directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition
> tools verbosely advise the user about the n
** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
>
> Perhaps..
>
>
> > It weakens the social contract
> > ==
> >
> > The social contra
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:47:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> This is a valid point and regardless of the outcome of this resolution I
> am almost insistant that we should also resolve to make the Social
> Contract and DFSG require a 3:1 vote to alter, just like the constitution
> on the ground
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> [please CC: any replies to me]
Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at
you, Joy.)
> directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition
> tools verbosely advise the user about the
** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
>
> Perhaps..
>
>
> > It weakens the social contract
> > ==
> >
> > The social contr
[please CC: any replies to me]
> Perhaps the GR proposed is not the most adiquate solution to do this, but
> I think if there were a second alternative on the table which did not
> alter the social contract and was less technically damaging to the project
> that it actually would have a fair chanc
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Perhaps..
> It weakens the social contract
> ==
>
> The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
> base t
[please CC: any replies to me]
> Perhaps the GR proposed is not the most adiquate solution to do this, but
> I think if there were a second alternative on the table which did not
> alter the social contract and was less technically damaging to the project
> that it actually would have a fair chan
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
Perhaps..
> It weakens the social contract
> ==
>
> The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
> base
The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
It weakens the social contract
==
The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now,
Debian users could rel
The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
It weakens the social contract
==
The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now,
Debian users could re
24 matches
Mail list logo
