Sorry it took so long to reply.
Frederik Schueler wrote:
>So among them, one driver is activated, which I just deactivated in SVN.
Glad to hear they're all deactivated. You do know that the source is
actually supposed to be DFSG-free as well?
>We will prune these drivers again from the lenny re
Nathanael Nerode said:
> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely
> zero*
> users.
Speaking of non-free material which benefits precisely many users, I've
been wanting to ask if there has been any further movement in the fix
to the GFDL. Currently bash info docs
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on
freedom"):
> I also argued (on IRC) about the fact that removing some non-free parts
> of upstream source tarballs (like RFC) is not really worth it if we make
> sure that it doesn't end up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Thanks, but I'm thinking more of the kinds of license that says you
> *have* to publish your changes and in a specific venue. seems like a
> close comparison with what has been said here about RFCs.
Ah, yes, that's normally not considered DFSG-free, I believe. I had
t
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:51:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> >> Which we have always allowed in software, even. It falls under the
> >> "publish it with another name".
>
> > the requ
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org
On Friday 14 September 2007 12:33, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please could you add some check in debian/rules to prevent non-free
> firmware from inadvertingly entering the linux-2.6 package, as descri
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: wishlist
Please could you add some check in debian/rules to prevent non-free firmware
from inadvertingly entering the linux-2.6 package, as described in the mail
quoted below?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:29:29AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 12 Se
[Ron Johnson]
> If I decided that I wanted to "build a better mousetrap", the first
> thing I'd do is go read the relevant RFCs.
Right, and the second thing you'd do is start hammering out a spec for
your improved protocol. Doing this by cutting and pasting bits from
the existing RFC just might
Hi,
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:37, Robert Millan wrote:
> > There isn't any patch that should be required here. There is already a
> > script in the kernel team repo to be used for pruning non-free firmware
> > from the tarball, and it appears that whoever produced the initial
> > uploads
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:50:40PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let user
On 13/09/2007, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. It is appears to be an excellent way to decide to ship broken
> software:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/09/12/ubuntu-technical-board-votes-on-compiz-for-ubuntu-7-10
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?s
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> If I may ad a rider to this: consider what kinds of things we
> vote upon: we try not to vote on technical issues, since voting is a
> poor means of making technical decisions.
Yes. It is appears to be an excellent w
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>>>
>>> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:20 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > > An obsession with "freedo
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:27:15 +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> - i
>> dont expect you to leave the ground when a user says 'jump'. but if
>> the only user whos allowed to say jump is a DD,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not only packagers can go though NM. It is a
> > measure of
> > commitment to the ideals and foundation documents of the
> > project, as much as it is a test of skills and patience.
>
> So this means N
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How do we know the difference? The criterion is known
> as the NM >> process. It's open to all.
>
> > NM. Does this mean only packaging counts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Which we have always allowed in software, even. It falls under the
>> "publish it with another name".
> the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional
> restriction. Gra
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Great. We agree.
> In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
> 1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?
Why is this a relevant question? You can't hack RFC 1725 if you rename it
or not.
If you could modify RFCs as long as you rename
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 10:01, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 20
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 10:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Ron Johnson]
>> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
>> must get permission from the IETF?
>
> Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
> permitted b
[Ron Johnson]
> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
> must get permission from the IETF?
Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
permitted by fair use, or (2) reprint the RFC verbatim. Those things
are permitted, and those are what O'Rei
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
>>
>> How do we know the difference? The criterion is known as the NM
>> process. It's open to all.
> NM. Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete action
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:50:40 +, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>>
>>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>>> benefit of users, then why n
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> "Distribution of this memo
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > RFC 1725 is (quoting the text) "primarily a minor revision to RFC
> > 1460", which in turn is (again quoting the text) "primarily a minor
> > revision to [RFC1225]", which itself in turn is based on ideas from
> > RFCs 918, 937, and 1081.
>
> You ca
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> >>
> >> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd
Hi,
John Kelly wrote:
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.
The social contract is a voluntary agreement. You are free to accept it,
but don't expect to get counted (as in being a DD) in votes if you
don't. DDs are bound to the Social Contract. If they d
Hi John,
John Kelly wrote:
> [...] For all practical intents and purposes, "mirrored everywhere"
> equals free.
No. I strongly disagree.
Or would you consider music and/or videos available in uncounted P2P
nodes (thus "mirrored everywhere") free too? I don't.
Micha
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
" Everyone is permitted to copy and distri
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
We do, actually. Those users who do sho
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:50 +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>
> > Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> > benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
>
> We do, actually. Those users who do show interest in influencing the
> course
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
>> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim c
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 18:59 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> If you stop removing RFCs from Debian, you'll still be a crowd of
> wackos, but at least it won't be so immediately obvious to the casual
> passerby.
If you know of an occasional passerby who takes the time to extract the
contents
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>
> Shouldn't we garantee
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 22:03 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> You may be aware that some people believe that the changes of
> GR-2004-003 were just editorial...
I wonder where you learned English, but the wording "Debian Will Remain
100% Free Software" doesn't leave any ambiguity to me. Ma
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:45 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents and
> purposes, "mirrored everywhere" equals free.
May I suggest you go back to basics?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:26:37PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>
> >> I don't consider it something needing fixing.
> >> It is a good way to have the copyright files occasionally reviewed.
> > I don't think that old source package
(-kernel dropped)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:07:43 +0300, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Sune Vuorela wrote:
> >> On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> You're not checking for copyright v
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:07:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> What about adding clarifications, what about summarising parts of the RFC?
You don't need a free license to do either of those things, though, which
is part of the reason why...
> It's more about the freedom to fix things or to use thi
Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> IMHO, it's not the ftp-master's job to check with each upload if a
> number of DDs follow the social contract as they should.
No? What exactly *is* there job then? According to
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
it *is* one of their jobs.
Regards,
Patr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[...]
> Those that pass NEW for whatever reason are reviewed. Yes, I did reject
> lots of such packages for copyright-file brokenness. :)
Speaking as someone who has just had a package pass NEW, I would like to thank
you for doubl
On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>> I don't consider it something needing fixing.
>> It is a good way to have the copyright files occasionally reviewed.
> I don't think that old source packages are re-reviewed for copyright
> violations/non-freeness. But I could easily be wrong.
Those
On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in
> all other packages.
I wonder what I did to all those thousands of packages I had in NEW in
the past.
> IMHO, it's not the ftp-master's job to check with each upload if a
> numbe
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:59:53 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sep 12, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new
>> applicants are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently
>> violate it at will for y
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:03:48 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sep 12, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the
>> entire contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote
>> outcome was that it extended
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:10:54 +0100, Benjamin A'Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Having packages available (whether in non-free or otherwise) can be
> useful in terms of having a local copy of the document, but not so
> vital as to ignore any licencing issues, since (as has been mentioned)
> they
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:07:43 +0300, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>>
>>> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff
>>> in all other packages.
> I ob
John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:35:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >there is little point in shipping rfc's that are mirrored everywhere
> >on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly non-free
>
> Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents an
On Sep 12, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire
> contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was that
> it extended to the entire contents of the archive. Unless you're
You may be aware that some
On Sep 12, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new
> applicants
> are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for
> years
> with no consequences.
When old members became members, it was commo
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:13 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't see the point to bend our ideals for obnoxious or invalid
>reasons (having RFCs in the source package is completely useless to the
>user in the first place).
If you truly believe that users will never see t
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>
>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
>
>We do, actually. Those users who do show interest in influenci
John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
We do, actually. Those users who do show interest in influencing the
course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
trolling
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:33:12PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of
> >> users, then why not let users
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of
>> users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be different if
>> another vote was taken, with lan
2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of
> users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be different if
> another vote was taken, with language specifically exempting RFCs from
> the DFSG.
This is pure demagogy [1] and a
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>
>> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in
>> all other packages.
I obviously meant all other *existing* source packages, i.e. all the
uploads that don't pass th
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:35:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I did not took any kind of position on the matter in that thread yet.
> But to make you happy I will: there is little point in shipping rfc's
> that are mirrored everywhere on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly
> non-free, and d
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:28:53 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>IF you close your eyes while people get attacked beside you for trying
>to do what you are calling for, then you have nothing to complain when
>things not happen like you want. Especially when those people who
>involve the
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire
>>contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was
>>that it extended to the entire contents of the archive.
> Recently,
On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in
> all other packages.
Yes he is.
> The only reason that things like linux-2.6.XX pass through NEW is, from
> my POV, because noone stepped up
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new
> > applicants
> > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for
> > years
> > with no consequences.
> >
> > It doesn't make me resp
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:39:09PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11140 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more.
>
> What team? We dont seem to have a team.
>
> > The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following file
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Oh well, the kernel team just lost its trust, which means new uploads of
> kernel-team packages dont get their old way of fasttracking in NEW, as I
> now need to check all of their uploads for such cases.
I'm not sure I find this helpful.
You're not checking for copyright vi
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of
> >> *precisely
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more.
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing states, in part:
> >Debian kernel team identifies the following three types of firmware,
> >currently
> >found
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:20:44 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire
>contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was that
>it extended to the entire contents of the archive.
Recently, or some t
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 09/12/07 09:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The IETF reserves the right to work on derivative standards based on
>> RFCs to itself. You cannot do so outside the IETF without violating
>> the RFC license.
> So you (or your company) must be a member of the I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 11:49, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070912 15:04]:
>> These are "official" protocol specifications. If you want to
>> summarize the RFC, do it in a separate document.
>
> Let's consider some use cases:
>
>
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files:
>
> drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h
# CONFIG_USB_DABUSB is not set
> drivers/net/drgs_firmware.c
# CONFIG_DGRS is not set
> drivers/usb/misc/emi26_f
* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070912 15:04]:
> These are "official" protocol specifications. If you want to
> summarize the RFC, do it in a separate document.
Let's consider some use cases:
* You want to use some protocol that is mostly the same as some RFC, but
with some things changed a
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:35:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>there is little point in shipping rfc's that are mirrored everywhere
>on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly non-free
Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents and
purposes, "mirrored everywhere
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:53 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
> >> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it,
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:53 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
>> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
>> > > willy-nilly modify the RFC text.
>>
>> > I'm shaking my hea
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:59:13PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:34 -0500, Ron Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
> > > w
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of
>> *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a
>> Social Contract
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:34 -0500, Ron Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
>> only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
>> willy-nilly modify the RFC text.
>I'm shaking my head in stunned disbelief
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 09:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
>
Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and
Le Wednesday 12 September 2007 14:07:55 Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
> > Someone who uses the modified RFC would create a buggy-by-design
> > program and when he realized what some DD had done, boy would he
> > (and his bosses, if relevant) be steamed, his trust in Debian would
> > plunge, he might
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
>>> Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have
>>> a different (sometimes non-existent) license. All, though, seem t
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:42 +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new
> > applicants
> > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for
> > years
> > with no consequences.
> >
> > It doesn't make me respect Deb
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:20:57AM +, John Kelly wrote:
> You can argue hypothetical cases all day, sorry I have no time for
> that. What's real is the time wasted removing whole RFCs from Debian
> in a mindless pursuit of "freedom." Why squander time on trivia when
> there more important thi
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:42:56PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely
> > zero*
> > users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation.
> I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new applicants
> are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for
> years
> with no consequences.
>
> It doesn't make me respect Debian very much.
I am not a DD (yet), but all my packages were very strict
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:25:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:38AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> > > Coming back to looking at Debian after being preoccupied by family
> > > business, I
> > > see that the kernel team is not even seriously trying to separate ou
Hi,
On Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 14:39:09 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely
> > zero*
> > users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation.
>
> Oh well, the kernel team just lost its trust, which means
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 07:07, Luk Claes wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune
On 11140 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more.
What team? We dont seem to have a team.
> The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files:
[...]
> In other words, *all* of the above drivers. It's even worse than
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Distribut
* Nathanael Nerode:
> The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files:
>
> drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h
Probably okay, could be a frequency table or some kind of bitmap. Who
knows.
> drivers/net/drgs_firmware.c
Doesn't exist upstream. Huh?
> drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h
Hi,
On Wed, 12.09.2007 at 09:20:57 +, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that. What's real is the time wasted removing whole RFCs from Debian
> in a mindless pursuit of "freedom." Why squander time on trivia when
> there more important things to do.
well, this one can be easily rectif
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:31 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
> > You've just found them. Without explicit permission, they are not
> > permitted.
>
> Really? Not in the RFCs I've read.
When not specified, copyright law applies.
> > You can draft derived versions, but you can't distribute
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
>>> Sorry, but the license doesn't allow that.
>> Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have
>> a different (somet
Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
> > Sorry, but the license doesn't allow that.
>
> Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have
> a different (sometimes non-existent) license. All, though, seem to
> say, "Distribution of this memo is unli
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:13:38 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Why don't you start to send patches then. Seems you have enough free
> time to look after such issues. Fixing Kernels to work on more
> (sometimes even important machines, like buildds) is a much more
> important job than to get rid of oh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/07 04:30, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 04:19 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit :
>> Except for "fixing typos", none of what you seem to propose seems
>> to my humble eyes to be modifying the base document. Give the new
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely
> zero*
> users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation.
Kernel has 736[1] open bugs, including ones that corrupt data and
ma
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
