I never received Debian DVD from Stormfront Ventures

[Yue Chen]

Hi,

I placed an order on July 25 *Order id:* #1975 ( Debian Linux 6.0.2 DVD
Architecture:8 Disc Set) from Stormfront Ventures. I never received it. The
only reason I purchase from Stormfront Ventures is their name shows on
debian.org website!! If it is necessary I can send you our emails. They
never answer the phone and never give me the tracking number. And now we
are just trying to get our money back!

-- 
*Bibliothèque et centre d'informatique Atwater
Atwater Library and Computer Centre*
À la disposition des montréalais depuis 1828 - Now in our 184th year

Yue(Charlotte) Chen
Computer Centre Manager
1200, avenue Atwater
Westmount (Québec) H3Z 1X4
Métro Atwater, angle des rues Atwater et Sainte-Catherine - au coeur du
centre-ville ouest
T: 514-935-7344 F: 514-935-1960
yc...@atwaterlibrary.ca
www.atwaterlibrary.ca

DFSG-free relicensing of the Debian logo(s)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

[ Cross-post and M-F-T: -doc, -www, -desktop. Please Cc:-me on replies ]

Background: of our logos http://www.debian.org/logos/ , the one "without
'Debian'" is released under Expat license, the one "with 'Debian'" under
a DFSG-non-free license.

I've been working with SFLC/SPI to solve the "non-free Debian logo"
issue. I've now got green light to relicense the logo "with 'Debian'"
under a dual LGPLv3+/CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Which is good!, as we'll
finally have a DFSG-free logo that we can include in the archive and, as
a consequence, use in official artwork, website, documentation, etc.
The actual relicensing shall be done by SPI (as copyright owner) and has
not happened yet. But it should happen during the next SPI board
meeting, scheduled for September 13th, 2012.

If you're working on Debian artworks or the like, feel free to start
using the official logo in them. Assuming that it will be DFSG-free RSN
is now a safe bet. You should just avoid claiming that it is *already*
free until my final announcement here (after September 13th).



We've also been advised not to relicense the "with 'Debian'" logo under
a so-called "liberal" license like the Expat license. This is no problem
for the "with 'Debian'" logo, as it was under a much stricter (and
non-free) license anyhow. But I think it'd be appropriate to have both
logos under the same license.

I'm therefore considering asking SPI to *also* relicense the "without
'Debian'" logo to LGPLv3+/CC-BY-SA 3.0.  I could use the input of
-doc/-www/-desktop people on this matter.

Strictly speaking, LGPL/CC-BY-SA is more restrictive than Expat. But I
wonder if any of that would be problematic for our use cases. To gather
some data, I've gone through some of the -doc material on the web, and
most of it seems to be under GPLv2+, so (assuming the logo is used there
at all), the change wouldn't induce any incompatibility. Same goes for
www.d.o material, given the recent relicensing.

Also, everyone who has obtained a copy of the logo while it was under
the previous license will be able to continue to use it under the old
license, and distribute it to others. Considering the very low
likelihood of Debian changing its logo, this change would have close to
no negative effect anyhow: people who really want to have an Expat
version of our logo will be able to find it on the Internet.

OTOH, the positive effect of relicensing both logos will be simpler
licensing terms for our logos as a whole and, as a consequence, a
simpler www.d.o/logos/ web page.  Hence my inclination to relicense both
logos. Before proceeding, though, I'd like to know if in your
(-www/-doc/-desktop) daily use cases you see problems with doing so.

Many thanks in advance for your help,
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

[Russ Allbery]

I plan on uploading version 3.9.4.0 of the debian-policy package on
2012-09-04.  The target for this release is to incorporate accumulated
fixes that catch Policy up to current behavior and current practices.
Since we're in release freeze at the moment, I don't intend to pursue, for
this release, changes that contradict current practice except for the
implementation of the Technical Committee ruling on the
build-arch and build-indep targets.

If anyone has any Policy bugs that they feel meet that criteria and would
like to resolve before the next upload, now is the time to try to make
forward progress on them.

I think the following Policy bugs meet that criteria and have proposed
wording and are just waiting for additional seconds:

#106073 recommend installing  docs into /usr/share/doc//
#542288 Versions for native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads
#640263 Clarify 9.9 - Environment variables
#648271 11.8.3 says xterm passes -e option straight to exec
#671355 [debconf] document escape capability

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4qsjq04@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Russ,

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 08:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I plan on uploading version 3.9.4.0 of the debian-policy package on
> 2012-09-04.  The target for this release is to incorporate accumulated
> fixes that catch Policy up to current behavior and current practices.
> Since we're in release freeze at the moment, I don't intend to pursue, for
> this release, changes that contradict current practice except for the
> implementation of the Technical Committee ruling on the
> build-arch and build-indep targets.

> If anyone has any Policy bugs that they feel meet that criteria and would
> like to resolve before the next upload, now is the time to try to make
> forward progress on them.

> I think the following Policy bugs meet that criteria and have proposed
> wording and are just waiting for additional seconds:

> #106073 recommend installing  docs into /usr/share/doc//
> #542288 Versions for native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads
> #640263 Clarify 9.9 - Environment variables
> #648271 11.8.3 says xterm passes -e option straight to exec
> #671355 [debconf] document escape capability

I would like to suggest #591791 be added to this list.  This is already
implemented in the archive in startpar/sysvinit/debhelper, so this is now a
matter of documenting existing practice and documenting the correct
constraints on the use of upstart jobs in packages, which I think meets your
criteria.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian Policy 3.9.4.0 planned for 2012-09-04

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> I would like to suggest #591791 be added to this list.  This is already
> implemented in the archive in startpar/sysvinit/debhelper, so this is
> now a matter of documenting existing practice and documenting the
> correct constraints on the use of upstart jobs in packages, which I
> think meets your criteria.

Sure, sounds good to me.  I was dithering about putting that on my list
already.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zk5ggqka@windlord.stanford.edu