On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:11:42AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
to get new machines,
Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
more than one machine?
Depends what's convenient; sorry, I wasn't
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:11:42AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
to get new machines,
Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
more than one machine?
Depends what's convenient; sorry, I wasn't
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
a whole lot of
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
a whole lot of
On 2004-01-13 12:38:57 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large
fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with a different
BTS. etc. Especially since it's all con and no
Please obey the Mail-Followup-To header.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm glad that you aggree that some things are better not in the
project's hosting.
I didn't say nor imply that. There are certainly some things we cannot
host at all for one reason or anything.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not
an insignificant portion of our developers, you know.
insignificant is a noise word unless you define what you see as
significant.
Well I don't consider 15% or
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The statistics summary by John Goerzen on vote (which you replied to)
suggested that at least 18% of popcon users are using a non-Debian
source, as we don't have j2re1.4. Is over a sixth a large fraction?
Depends on what you mean by
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:20:22PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this all the time, so we don't have to
discuss any other issues.
Do you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
provide good
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
and its infrastructure from me.
Then shut up, fix bugs and vote No when the time is right,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
provide
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
I'm guessing you're thinking: fork
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
easy it would be to get mirrors for that)
The issue is support. Uptime, package
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
easy it would be to get
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
(and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
non-free during the time you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
go ahead, and prove me
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:45:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
(and heck, you probably could have
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
What's this we ? Please speak for
On 2004-01-13 12:38:57 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large
fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with a different
BTS. etc. Especially since it's all con and
Please obey the Mail-Followup-To header.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm glad that you aggree that some things are better not in the
project's hosting.
I didn't say nor imply that. There are certainly some things we cannot
host at all for one reason or anything.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The statistics summary by John Goerzen on vote (which you replied to)
suggested that at least 18% of popcon users are using a non-Debian
source, as we don't have j2re1.4. Is over a sixth a large fraction?
Depends on what you mean by
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:20:22PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this all the time, so we don't have to
discuss any other issues.
Do you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
provide good
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
and its infrastructure from me.
Then shut up, fix bugs and vote No when the time is right,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
*I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
provide
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
I'm guessing you're thinking: fork
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:20:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
and its infrastructure
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
easy it would be to get mirrors for that)
The issue is support. Uptime, package
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
easy it would be to get
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
(and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
non-free during the time you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
go ahead, and prove me
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:45:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
(and heck, you probably could have
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
What's this we ? Please speak for
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:13:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:13:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is
Scripsit Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you are missing the point.
No, you are.
this Non-DFSG: field is *NOT* intended to describe why a package fails a
particular clause, it is intended solely to *list* which clause(s) it fails.
nothing more, nothing less.
The point is that I don't se
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free,
hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white?
It is non-white.
PS: excluding
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free,
hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white?
It is non-white.
PS: excluding
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:57:09AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you are missing the point.
No, you are.
sorry, but you are blind, ignorant and stupid.
i have no time to waste in a futile attempt to educate you.
craig
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not an
insignificant portion of our
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
***much*** simpler.
As you point out earlier in your email,
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example,
is _very_ broad.
Yes, I know. So is 5,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any piece
of source code you may have, as long as you don't distribute it.
One of the DFSG issues is
[Setting MFT to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as this discussion is
OT for -vote and -devel. Feel free to override as appropriate.]
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
[...]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
non-free had
Non-DFSG: 3
What about : Non-DFSG: 3
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
non-free had
Non-DFSG: 3
and a tool that parsed that displayed
This package is non-free
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not an
insignificant portion of our
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
***much*** simpler.
As you point out earlier in your email,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any piece
of source code you may have, as long as you don't distribute it.
One of the DFSG issues is
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example,
is _very_ broad.
Yes, I know. So is 5,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
[...]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
***much*** simpler.
[Setting MFT to debian-legal@lists.debian.org, as this discussion is
OT for -vote and -devel. Feel free to override as appropriate.]
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
licence which will legally be able to stop you from
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
non-free had
Non-DFSG: 3
and a tool that parsed that displayed
This package is non-free
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
that means i
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:23:12PM +0100]:
I would advocate making this more prominent - This proposal is quite
good, and it would add expresiveness to tools such as vrms... But I
would like to see something like
/usr/share/doc/package/why_is_nonfree, stating the reason (a
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
Michael
I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the
copyright in a separate file, for two reasons
1) ease of machine
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, [...]
thanksyeah, i thought it was a good idea too. it tells (without any
detail) exactly why the package is in non-free in
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, but you are wrong.
most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even
(almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict
definition.
If they
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
own guidelines the packages are not free, since they fail one or more
clauses
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
that means i
Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against non-free
packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the copyright
file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
good idea. perhaps
What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
That would be misleading I think.
Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
Michael
I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the
copyright in a separate file, for two reasons
1) ease of machine
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:23:12PM +0100]:
I would advocate making this more prominent - This proposal is quite
good, and it would add expresiveness to tools such as vrms... But I
would like to see something like
/usr/share/doc/package/why_is_nonfree, stating the reason (a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, [...]
thanksyeah, i thought it was a good idea too. it tells (without any
detail) exactly why the package is in non-free in
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:07AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against
non-free
packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the
copyright
file
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, but you are wrong.
most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even
(almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict
definition.
If they
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
affected and it's a major PITA to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines.
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least as
robust as Debian's, should you convince them they ought.
--
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:03:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this
in non-free?
This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
ALMOST FREE
---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
own guidelines the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
affected and it's a major PITA to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
