-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all
Have you read about Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)?
See: https://u.fsf.org/xk
I think next releases of Iceweasel should be build *without* EME and
any other DRM-related stuff.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (D
No +1 because proprietary firmware is unethical too.
Le 05/05/2014 17:28, Salvo Tomaselli a écrit :
>> …and firmware.
> +1
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.de
Le 04/05/2014 23:15, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:59:09PM +0200, Solal wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters
>
> Who's 'we'?
"We" in the official list of Debian developers means... The Debi
on to help unethical
things.
Le 04/05/2014 17:07, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
> On 04/05/2014 14:24, Solal wrote:
>> [GR2004-2] have nothing to do with it.
>> My proprosition is just warn about proprietary software dangers, but
>> users would still install non-free sof
13:59, Solal wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we
>> should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software
>> unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary
>> software but just that we warn
I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we
should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software
unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary
software but just that we warn of dangers. howewer, we will not help
proprietary software cre
The "Artistic" link go to the Perl license text.
The Artistic License isn't a free license (non-defined definitions such
as "C or Perl subroutines" make it invalid and potentially proprietary,
FSF is right when they says "is too vague for talk about free").
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev
>> The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
>> not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
>> issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
>> trademarks limited, etc.
>>
>> GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections a
or example).
The DFSG is really bad, too laxist and useless.
Le 26/04/2014 22:13, Dimitri John Ledkov a écrit :
> On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, "Solal" wrote:
>>
>> Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
>> time in specific guidelines.
&g
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
time in specific guidelines.
I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :
-Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG.
-Be
I agree with you. An obfuscated source isn't source and should'nt be in
source packages. But in binary packages, yes. Also, as say the GNU
LibreJS standard for publish free JavaScript code, If there are a
comment which is an URL to the source and the corresponding source is
free, the obfuscated cod
Hello! I've an idea for a new apt-get package style :
Developer side :
-The developer create a ./install script in the source code.
-The install script executes all commands necessary for install the software.
Also, it getting dependancies, etc.
-The developer create a tarball (.tar.bzip2) and re
Le 3 mars 2014 à 13:59, forum::für::umläute a écrit :
> assuming for a second that you are not trolling,
>
> On 2014-02-28 12:56, Solal Rastier wrote:
>> Further proof that Debian is proprietary software...
>>
>
> hmm.
> but since both "contrib" an
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 19:22, Octavio Alvarez a écrit :
> On 02/28/2014 09:29 AM, Solal Rastier wrote:
>> I not compare Debian with Windows. The FSF publishes a GNU/Linux freedom
>> indicator. Debian is proprietary, sorry.
>
> Ah! The FSF website [1] says otherwise. The FSF
I not compare Debian with Windows. The FSF publishes a GNU/Linux freedom
indicator. Debian is proprietary, sorry.
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 18:24, Octavio Alvarez a écrit :
> On 02/28/2014 05:18 AM, Solal Rastier wrote:
>> 1. I'm not a troll
>> 2. What is "top-post"?
That's not an answer. For users, that doesn't change anything.
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 15:20, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Solal Rastier, le Fri 28 Feb 2014 12:56:00 +0100, a écrit :
>> Further proof that Debian is proprietary software...
>
> contrib and non-free are no
1. I'm not a troll
2. What is "top-post"?
3. Why I need stop?
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 13:10, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> Le 28/02/2014 12:56, Solal Rastier a écrit :
>> Further proof that Debian is proprietary software...
>
> I applause this almost inconspicuous troll
Further proof that Debian is proprietary software...
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 12:46, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> Op vrijdag 28 februari 2014 12:42:39 schreef u:
>> The FSF believe documentation need to be free, and that's true...
>
> It is true that it needs to be free, but their license just isn't f
Why the "nonfree" and "contrib" distributions aren't removed?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/db2f0f4e-6f63-4246-a1cd-7a509f378...@me.com
19 matches
Mail list logo
