On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain completely f
> > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > only free software.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> You are missing my interpretation:
>
> [C] Debian is constituted by 100% Free Software. Software that is 100%
> Free Software, an
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:51, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > > only free software.
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > You are missing my interpretation:
> >
> > [C] Debian is constituted by
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:10:55PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I am pointing out there is another interpretation - a third. You chose
> two interpretations, neither of which (necessarily) are "best". I'm not
> saying mine is either, only pointing out a third interpretation.
For my purposes, it
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I've been asked to re-write my amendment which proposes to
> update the social contract, eliminating all independent issues
> - -- the idea being that this will be less confusing to voters.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/deb
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
> software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
> way or another!
I don't think it's meaningful to claim that anything under
http://ftp.debi
> > > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's a really weak and uninspiring statement, too. Even Microsoft
> distributes software that's 100% free.
Yeah -- that's why I took so long to post, I was tr
> > If we look at what Debian actually does, and/or the rest of the social
> > contract, [A] makes sense, but [B] contradicts both the rest of the
> > social contract and the current structure of Debian.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> It's only contradictory whe
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know
> that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make
> sense. Would
>
> New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free"
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:49:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> It would be equivalently a trivial statement. As aj pointed out - even
> Microsoft distributes Software That's 100% Free (some parts of the GNU
> tools in their Unix Services for Windows, for example).
No, they do not -- that softwar
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:17:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:49:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It would be equivalently a trivial statement. As aj pointed out - even
> > Microsoft distributes Software That's 100% Free (some parts of the GNU
> > tools in their Unix
> > No, they do not -- that software depends on software which is not free,
> > so it's not 100% free.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:26:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> ReactOS is Free Software, AFAIK. No idea whether the Unix Services run
> on that, though.
>
> If you don't like to be compared to
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:18:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck
> > between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a
> > project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those
> > who did wanted to hav
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know
> that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make
> sense. Would
>
> New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free"
>
> > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing
> > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B?
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> The compromise is reached by drawing firm limits what around what
> Debian is (or what and how it will
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not
> recommended, or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms
> where you have to engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk
> about stuff.
Unofficial or uns
Raul Miller wrote:
New: "1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free"
I propose we change the title of section 1 of the social contract,
and the first sentence so they read:
1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
We promise to keep the f
> > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
> >
> > We promise to keep the free software of the Debian System
> > Distributions completely free.
> >
> > We will continue to support free software, and non-free software, just
> > as we always have.
On Tue, Ja
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
> useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I doubt that calling those be
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:38:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing
> > > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B?
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > The compromise is reached by dra
> > How does that work? Seems to me that you can achieve A associates
> > with B, or A does not associate with B, but neither are compromise.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 01:42:42PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> You seem to be conflating "distributes" with "will remain" into a
> single concept: "ass
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
> > software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
> > way or another!
>
>
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I do
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:41:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> We're promising that our system will stay free --
I can't find that assumption in your proposal. You say that 'the Free
Software in Debian will remain Free' and 'We will distribute Free
Software'(paraphrased). That doesn't mean that t
> > We're promising that our system will stay free --
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I can't find that assumption in your proposal. You say that 'the Free
> Software in Debian will remain Free' and 'We will distribute Free
> Software'(paraphrased). That doesn't m
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to
> > that which AJ suggested.
> If it were accompanied by an official definition of "The Debian
> Distribution", I'd be happy with AJ's proposal. Without that defini
> > [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> > remain completely free.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:37:20AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> First of all, I need to apologize for my earlier statement in a related
> thread that you should generically substitute the use of wo
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:40:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For comparison, from the social contract rewrite I mentioned a while ago,
>
> ] We will build a free operating system
> ]
> ] We will create and provide an integrated system of free software that
> ] anyone can use. We will make
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:18:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:40:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For comparison, from the social contract rewrite I mentioned a while ago,
> > ] We will build a free operating system
> > ] We will create and provide an integrated sy
Raul Miller wrote:
Wouldn't it be more exact to say
=
Debian will distribute software which is useful for our users and can be
legaly distributed free of charge. We promise to prefer free software to
non-free.
=
That loses the emphasis on keeping t
> > That loses the emphasis on keeping the software completely free.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:31:15PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Doesn't "We promise to prefer free software to non-free." address it
> good enough? Since Debian prefers free, it should be clear that the free
> software will
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:37:20AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> First of all, I need to apologize for my earlier statement in a related
> thread that you should generically substitute the use of word "that" for
> "which". They are distinctly different beasts. Google turned up a few
> grammatical
> >[A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> >remain completely free.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This interpretation is a no-op. Read it again: it doesn't commit
> Debian to do ANYTHING. At least, not anything in Debian's power
Let me start by saying I support Raul's enthusiasm about this topic,
just not his proposals. I will not continue in a line-by-line shootout
over tangentials or get drawn away from examining the proposal at hand.
My overall disagreement with Raul's proposal is that most of the changes
he puts forth
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:39:17AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> The purpose of these ammendments is to increase the SC's resistance to
> misinterpretation. I honestly disagree with the intended intrepretation
> of Raul's proposals, thereby enforcing my opinion that they fall short
> of their goal
Raul Miller wrote:
>I'm proposing that we can update the social contract to eliminate the
>ambiguities which encourage these misunderstandings, while retaining
>the the sense and significance of the contract, and without any radical
>changes in the project itself.
>
>Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 10
Anthony Towns wrote:
>How about:
>
> 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
> there are many definitions of free software, we include the
> guidelines we use to determine if software is "free"
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 1. The Debian Distribution will remain 100% Free
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
> promise that the Debian system and
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the
> > contentious issue of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation
> > of section 5 to "Programs", by clarifying that the DF
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:19:54PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply
> > doesn't, well, work.
> The GPL can be a work, but we are using it (primarily) in the context
> of a license, as opposed to a mere work. Like copyright statemen
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:19:54PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The GPL can be a work, but we are using it (primarily) in the
> > context of a license, as opposed to a mere work. Like copyright
> > statements, valid licenses[1] are legal documents whic
I wrote:
> So, let's focus on making the SC less resistant to misinterpretation.
s/less/more/
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:07:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the
> SC. I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to
>
> > You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the
> > SC. I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to
> > distribute in 100% free form software systems which have been in 100%
> > free form.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:26:04PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:23:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > nor does it make a lot of sense to treat licenses differently when
> > they cover a free work to when they're included in the package for
> > other reasons (namely, they benefit users of the package in some
> > way, such as serving
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Please, get Andrew's editorial-fixes proposal passed already. *sigh* I
> > don't
> > give a damn about the non-free issue either way, but I *do* care that the
> > 'main' archive is *actually* free.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:30:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I would like to express my disagreement toward attempt to reject input
> from users and contributors[1] on issues that will impact them, by
> resorting to ad hominem attack and sheer contempts in total disregard
> of our current Soci
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:23:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > There is a large difference between a valid license and a chunk of
> > text that happens to look like a license.
>
> Well, no, there's not: if it's the same text, it's the same
> text. Yo
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:30:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > Please, get Andrew's editorial-fixes proposal passed already. *sigh* I
> > > don't
> > > give a damn about the non-free issue either w
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:23:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > There is a large difference between a valid license and a chunk of
> > > text that happens to look like a license.
> >
Anthony Towns wrote:
>The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
>to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
>there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
>to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:36:13PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> There is, in general, no discernable difference between programs,
> "data", and documentation found in the Debian distribution.
For the record, I agree with Nathanael on the issue underlying this
statement, though I'd phrase it di
> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wro
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> But more importantly, Debian is lying. I care about that. It is deeply
> objectionable for Debian to claim that it is "100% Free Software" when it
> isn't even *trying* to be. Just as it is deeply objectionable for RMS to
> c
AJ wrote:
> What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
> available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
> improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
> exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences?
May I rephrase this questi
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> > of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> > by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
> Anthony Tow
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:16:23PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ wrote:
> > What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
> > available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
> > improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
> > e
On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he
thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do
you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's?
I don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered works are free
> software. Has he expressed an opinion on that, or are you using
> telepathic devices?
GNU deals with this by defining software as equivalent to programs,
and defining other
AJ wrote:
>Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute
>all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to
>be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you
>don't get to make that many demands.
Demands? Did I make any demands?
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Neither does including a small little non-free utility in main for
> > which we don't have source.
>
> Sure it does: it means people who don't have non-free in their
> sources.list can ge
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns
> >RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he
> >thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do
> >you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump
AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
>Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot
>possibly mean programs, but not documentation,
It could, but (a) that's not the most proper meaning, and (b) it's not the
meaning of the people who wrote the phrase. Did yo
AJ wrote:
>I don't really see how trying to convince the FSF to change the GFDL is
>counterproductive; surely it's unproductive at worst.
Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main gives
the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact allows them
to
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Neither does including a small little non-free utility in main for
> > > which we don't have source.
> > Sure it does:
Anthony Towns wrote:
The question is whether we do it
immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
One who wants to chop off cat's tail, s
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:50AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for
Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists.
> AJ Towns, doing his best idiot impression, said:
Man. We need a "Insulting HOWTO"
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > distributing the "stupid little utility" instead of just being a
> > chunk of license like text.
>
> But there are a
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:05:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> AJ wrote:
(And that's, like, so boring I'm reduced to tears. *sniff*)
> Yep, it's unproductive. However, allowing non-free GFDL stuff into main
> gives the FSF precisely zero incentive to change the GFDL, and in fact
> allows
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:48:52PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Sure, but the license has now been made relevant in the context of
> > > distributing the "stupid little utility" inste
On 2004-01-30 05:40:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the flip side,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
software as
Please report this bug to them.
Finally, note that RMS does claim that GFDL licensed works are free
We can claim that the unicor
Anthony Towns wrote:
For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure
why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making.
Why not? Imagine people who's further decision on supporting
Debian depends on the Debian decision regarding non-free.
One can th
On 2004-01-30 04:56:11 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:20:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 + Anthony Towns
>RMS has
done more for free software than you have, and he
thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why
do
you think
> > On the flip side,
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software&r=67 defines
> > software as
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please report this bug to them.
Too many pronouns error.
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:38PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...]
> >] rejecting software
> >] licenses that we consider free
> This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of
> interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of
On 2004-01-30 14:02:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Too many pronouns error.
No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:57PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, it looks like you have an "arse too smart error" to me.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:34:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Not everything that could be useful can reasonably be guaranteed by
> > > the social contract.
> > Probably, but when it is a usefull act upon a work in main covered by
> > the DFSG, it seemingly is guaranteed by the Social Contra
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a Social
> Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences like text from
> needing to satisfy the DFSG?
>
OK. Here goes
DRAFT FOR COMMENT/FLAMES ETC.
Debian
On 2004-01-30 21:19:30 + Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This document is intended to supplement the Debian Free Software
Guidelines
I think you still need to amend the social contract to say which you
use when, which is what has been asked for in the past.
Your document
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Sure, as can non-DFSG free source... but we generally hold that the
> > relevance of such a work isn't enough for it to be included in main.
>
> I'm saying the reason you might want to use
AJ quoth:
>> >Well,
>> >the other question that you seem to want to raise is whether we should
>> >decide we've been hypocrites and liars for the entirety of our existance
>> >by choosing a particular new reading of the social contract.
>> Well, you're only lying once you *notice* that you're not t
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:46:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK, fine, you've convinced me of the historic level of hypocrisy
> and wilful Social Contract violation in Debian.
A couple notes are in order here:
[1] You've not backed up your assertion with any reasoning.
[2] The problem wit
>> Obviously, it's worth asking upstream to relicense before pulling stuff.
But
>> when upstream has *refused*, that's another matter. Isn't it?
>
>Frankly, I don't think there's been a reasonable discussion with upstream
>yet. What I've seen has been people telling the FSF they're immoral
>and
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:39:07PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm getting lost here. Do you mean that we should (in the context of
> the Andrew's proposed SC)
I haven't looked through Andrew's proposed SC in any detail. I wouldn't
presume to comment on it or its implications.
> > > It's at le
Em Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:07:14 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the SC.
> I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to distribute
> in 100% free form software systems which have been in 100% free for
Em Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:05 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> > >[A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> > >remain completely free.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > This interpretation is a no-op. Read it ag
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
> the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
> non-free software or software which is dependent on non-free software.
And, by
Em Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:44:41 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
> > the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or prom
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
> > the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
> > non-free software or so
> > What I want to know is: why don't you want us distributing such thing?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 06:52:47PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Because I consider that Debian should not be promoting non-free software,
> and having them on our ftp servers and, specially, mentioned in our instal
> "Zenaan" == Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zenaan> On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
Zenaan> Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to
Zenaan> distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being
Zenaan> "software" but instead a u
The position to remove non-free as integrated part of Debian is a
"technology first", "end user second" position. While the goal for a
100% free distribution is a great goal, I draw the line when users are
negatively impacted for the sake of the goal. It boils down to -- Who
do you put first-- th
Well, as you all know i have upto now be mostly a proponent of the keep
non-free camp, because, altough i fully would prefer every software in
debian to be free, i feel that this is not really yet the time for it.
Now, there are three catgoeries of non-free packages, and Matt mostly
mentions one o
Sven, thou hast all but redeemed thyself with this post...
:)
Em Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:48:42 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> > > What I want to know is: why don't you want us distributing such thing?
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 06:52:47PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > Because I consider that Debian should not be promoting non-free
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, as you all know i have upto now be mostly a proponent of the keep
> non-free camp, because, altough i fully would prefer every software in
> debian to be free, i feel that this is not really yet the time for it.
Ah, so there is a time for it? Can y
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:08:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, as you all know i have upto now be mostly a proponent of the keep
> > non-free camp, because, altough i fully would prefer every software in
> > debian to be free, i feel that t
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:08:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Well, as you all know i have upto now be mostly a proponent of the keep
> > > non-free camp, because, altough i fully would prefer every software in
> >
1 - 100 of 500 matches
Mail list logo
