On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:27:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Salut Charles,
> Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild
> our
^^
> system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:45:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:10:23PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > At the risk of repeating myself (I already said it in an answer to
> > Charles' GR proposal), these core values are also what all DDs agreed to
> > abide by. If Charles doe
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:10:23PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> At the risk of repeating myself (I already said it in an answer to
> Charles' GR proposal), these core values are also what all DDs agreed to
> abide by. If Charles doesn't like Debian's core values, maybe he should
> resign.
The last
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, you dissociate yourself from Charles's
> POV about what's part of Debian and thus what needs to be free according
> to DFSG. In another thread you said all other candidates are above NOTA
> for you.
Yes, that
Hi Marga,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:45:11PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> > with <20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up with
> > a
> > draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements for t
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> with <20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up with a
> draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian
> packages.".
>
> I'd like to know from Charles Plessy if the draft from Janua
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:32:19 +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote
> 2. If tarball is not redistributable
> It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable
No, If its not redistributable, It doesn't belong in non-free or any
other place we distribute software. This is why we d
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:00:38PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Dienstag, 23. März 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> > > operating system. It is controversial.
> > It is a lot but not controversial, actually its pre
Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> I you would like to guarantee to the users that unpacked debian source
> is DFSG we should hook into unpack (similar to DpkgSrc3.0 / quilt) and
> remove DFSG blobs at maintainers discretion for example by parsing
> debian/copyright.
> [...]
> This change will result in mai
Hi,
On Dienstag, 23. März 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> > operating system. It is controversial.
> It is a lot but not controversial, actually its pretty clear.
> For that statement alone *I* hope NOTA will have a big win ove
On 24/03/10 00:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild
> our
> system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
> or a binary program that is aimed at run on a Windows system. I conclude that
> that kind
>> "Our users" includes not only an individual with a single computer who
>> never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
>> organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
>> modify the source for their own purposes.
> Our users, if they want to modify, stu
Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
> 2. If tarball is not redistributable
> It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable
I think people are missing the degree of complexity in this. For
instance, files included the source tarball that aren't used by the Debian
build but are un
Very interesting thread.
== In short ==
tarballs must be redistributable, unpacked debian source package
should be DFSG-free, debian binary package must be DFSG-free.
== Long ==
1. Upstream tarball is not debian source
Cause you cannot build/run/understand anything if you just have a
bunch of t
Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:01PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
>
> "Our users" includes not only an individual with a single computer who
> never sees the source, but also derivative distributions, private
> organizations, system administrators, etc, all of whom may need to
> modify the s
> The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> operating
> system. It is controversial.
It is a lot but not controversial, actually its pretty clear.
For that statement alone *I* hope NOTA will have a big win over you,
sorry. It shows you are way off with actual projec
Charles Plessy writes:
> The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> operating system. It is controversial. Despite it does not change our
> fundation documents, I think that a GR would be needed to make sure that
> there is a general agreement.
For whatever it's wort
On 03/23/2010 11:03 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> operating
> system. It is controversial.
To some of us, "the Debian operating system" is at least as much about
the packaged source as it is about the packaged binaries.
If y
Hi Charles,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:03:00AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The second option aims at clarifying what is the source of the Debian
> operating system. It is controversial.
I would like to say, for the record, that I believe you've lost track of
what lives in Debian if you claim t
Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:01:40PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> If we want to change our foundation documents, and remove the
> awoval to the concept of being 100% free, or to say that Debian, and
> thus the parts of Debian covered by the DFSG, are just the binary bits,
> then
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:47:09AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:42:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> >
> > On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
> > source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
> > something
Hi Charles,
On Sonntag, 21. März 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Lastly, I am not sure if I will ask sponsors for this GR, as I wrote:
>
> ‘A GR that is accepted by a large majority is not necessarly a waste of
> time, because it dissipates misunderstantings that can arise with tacite
> agreements
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:47:09AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I explained in my GR proposition what led me to conclude that not everything
> in
> the original archives distributed usptream is a source for Debian. Let's take
> a
> non-free RFC for example, that is not distributed in a binary p
Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:42:51PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
> source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
> something in upstream tarball is non-free, I believe we should do
> repacking (there
On Sun, Mar 21 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>
>> On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
>> source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
>> something in upstream tarball is non-free, I believe we should do
>> repacking (t
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On the contrary, I'm against point (2) of the GR. I do consider our
> source packages to be part of Debian and hence subject to DFSG. If
> something in upstream tarball is non-free, I believe we should do
> repacking (there, we might use a bit more standardization on
Le Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:49:28PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 2) I think that the Debian operating system is defined by the interaction
> > of
> > its binary version and the source files necessary to use, study,
> > modifiy and
> > redistribute it. Non-DFS
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> with <20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up
> with a draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements
> for the Debian packages.".
>
> From the other candidates I'd like to know their opinion
Charles Plessy wrote:
> 2) I think that the Debian operating system is defined by the interaction of
> its binary version and the source files necessary to use, study, modifiy
> and
> redistribute it. Non-DFSG-free files that happen to be codistributed with
> the
> source of the Debi
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> From the other candidates I'd like to know their opinion and plans (if there
> are any) about license/copyright requirements in Debian.
I have no specific plans.
My opinion on the subject is that while there may be good reasons for
Le Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> with <20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up with a
> draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian
> packages.".
>
> I'd like to know from Charles Plessy if t
Hi all,
with <20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up with a
draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian
packages.".
I'd like to know from Charles Plessy if the draft from January still reflect his
current opinion or if his mind changed.
32 matches
Mail list logo
