Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-23 Thread Ben Finney
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 10:25 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Personal attacks (to call my statements “lies” is to assert that > > I'm knowingly stating falsehood) are not welcome. > > This is not a personal attack. You are spreading lies Tha

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-23 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > This is not a personal attack. You are spreading lies implying no one is > working on these bugs while YOU are the one discouraging people to work > on them. Again, please stop your lies, and if you really want to help, > please stop all of your contr

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-23 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 22 novembre 2008 à 19:49 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : >> Could you take this tone away from -vote, please? > > Manoj, please don’t take this personally, Then do stop attacking the man, as this email does right now, rec

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 22 novembre 2008 à 19:49 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > Could you take this tone away from -vote, please? Manoj, please don’t take this personally, but I don’t think you are qualified to tell what is an appropriate tone for a discussion. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 10:25 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > > You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix > > > them, they need to be acknowledged a

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because you've repeatedly said in this thread that one of your motives in > discussing this is to ensure that the DFSG declares this a bug so that it > will be fixed. I would say not “… so that it will be fixed”, but rather “… so that it's easier to reco

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. >>> I'm arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that >>> DFSG violations are bugs by defi

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. > > I'm arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that > > DFSG violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as > > suc

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, Nov 22 2008, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Really? you didn't explain why; what I'm asking is what you did to fix > the bugs you believe to violate your interpretation of DFSG. That's my > point (dunno what you understood) If you want to see what kind of work some DD is doing, can you ta

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, Nov 22 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : >> You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix >> them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. > > Would you please stop your lies and go trolling elsew

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, Nov 22 2008, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Really? so can you please show us what you've done to fix them? >> Note that we can both have what we are asking for: discussing a >> general resolution does not preclude working to improve Debian. > > Sure we can, then why don't do both instead of just

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, Nov 22 2008, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! >> >> I wasn't lying when I agreed to that. > > And what changed in the Debian Project if you ag

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. I'm > arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that DFSG > violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as such. The DFSG doesn't define bugs. It defines release-cr

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix > > them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. > > Would you please stop your lies Personal attacks

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix > them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. Would you please stop your lies and go trolling elsewhere? Please? Happily the Debian kernel maintainers

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 14:09, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 13:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix > them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. That's what > is being discussed: whether certain freedoms are or are not DFSG > violations (and therefore bugs). Poorly phrased. “…

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
"Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 13:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> Debian is

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 13:41, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been. >> >

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
"Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been. > > > > Indeed. Those instances where it's not free are bugs to be fixed. > >

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! > > I wasn't lying when I agreed to that. And what changed in the Debian Project if you agree to it or not? >> Debian is not 100% free softw

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-22 Thread Ben Finney
Jacob Hallén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! I wasn't lying when I agreed to that. It's a promise, a measure to stive for. I will concede that we're currently not meeting that promise, but that doesn't make it a lie. > Debian is not 100% free software, and i

Re: Resolving the controversy

2008-11-21 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le samedi 22 novembre 2008 à 01:54 +0100, Jacob Hallén a écrit : > The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! Then later: > 2. The SC states that the goals of Debian is to produce a totally free > software distribution. > > This implies that practicality for users is not a concern and that > Debian

Resolving the controversy

2008-11-21 Thread Jacob Hallén
I have followed the inner workings of Debian since the early days of the project, and I have seen numerous debates on the same topic as the current one. I think they all boil down to a very core problem: The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has b