Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2009-01-01 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the > Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I doubt that this a usable definiti

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > But the way you wrote in 4 as "we will make any private discussions > publically available at the earliest opportunity." is problematic since > it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along "we will make > any private discussio

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented > over doctrinal disput

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread gregor herrmann
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:45:56 +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > Freedom of speech is a constitutional disposition, and I don't think it is > something that could be acheive. It really is a constitutional act. > > It is also why I am against the Code of Conduct. Freedom of speech is an > utopism tha

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mike Hommey: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer > > wrote: > >> * Theodore Tso: > >> > >> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > >> > Social Contract, which I obje

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Gerfried Fuchs: >> For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object >> to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute >> proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, >> or by linking them in some way). > > But it is. The web browser

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is > > there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal > > importance, there are six

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Russ Allbery
Romain Beauxis writes: > Le Monday 29 December 2008 17:21:16 Theodore Tso, vous avez écrit : >> I do feel quite strongly, that aspirational goals, if they are going to >> be in Foundation Documents, must be clearly *labelled* as aspirational >> goals, and not as inflexible mandates that _MUST_ be

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Gerfried Fuchs
* Florian Weimer [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]: > * Theodore Tso: > > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > > relaxed the f

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Daniel Moerner
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, >> please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of >> cardinal importance. Debian ha

Re: [s...@powerlinux.fr: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations]

2008-12-29 Thread Patrick Matthäi
> I think the problem is not really the social contract, what it currently > says is just fine, and we all agree with it. ACK. > We have free stuff, which is in main, and non-free stuff of diverse > variety, which is in non-free (plus the hybrid contrib). > > My own guess is that all those clamo

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Romain Beauxis
Le Monday 29 December 2008 17:21:16 Theodore Tso, vous avez écrit : > I do feel quite strongly, that aspirational goals, if they are going > to be in Foundation Documents, must be clearly *labelled* as > aspirational goals, and not as inflexible mandates that _MUST_ be > kept.  In politics, can hav

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > To me, the social contract is a very good compromise. It states first an > idealist acheivement, but moderates it by some pragmatism concerning the > users. "unproductive" discussions fall into the same category, when they do >

[s...@powerlinux.fr: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations]

2008-12-29 Thread Wouter Verhelst
rsion=3.1.7-deb3 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:25 +0100 To: Anthony Towns , lea...@debian.org, da-mana...@debian.org, listmas...@debian.org, s...@powerlinux.fr Cc: debian-v...@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenn

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, > please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of > cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to > the promise only i

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Romain Beauxis
(Resending a previous private answer to Theodore since I believe it is relevant to the discussion..) Le Monday 29 December 2008 15:11:01 Theodore Tso, vous avez écrit : > As I said in my recent blog entry[1], I believe that "100% free" is a > wonderful aspirational goal --- other things being equ

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and > I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch > of free st

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in > fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others, > Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the > FSF), Dynebolic, Mu

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against > it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't > care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is > even o

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Mike Hommey: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer > wrote: >> * Theodore Tso: >> >> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian >> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. >> > If there was a GR which chainged t

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Theodore Tso: > > > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Theodore Tso: > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on th

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi, On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > > social contract" low

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]: > I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, > please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of > cardinal importance. I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that gNewSense alrea

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people > want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as > a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will > change, and we'll have this dis

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially > buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian > users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability), > and potentially usi

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > I'm not ashamed at all; I joine

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > > > > I'm not ashamed at all; I

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Faidon Liambotis
Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in > the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the > options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest, > safest and most easily justified seems to be "stop discus

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Simon Huggins
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:33AM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change > > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to > > release... > If you

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Simon Huggins
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in > the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of > the options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the > simplest, safest and most

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2), > and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated > by further discussion by 109 votes. Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to si

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:57:37 +0100 Toni Mueller wrote: > On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns > wrote: > > If you consider the same results, without the supermajority > > requirements for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get: > > > > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with pr

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements > for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get: > > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware considering all the problems around this p

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote: > In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that > option x received over option y. > Option > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > === === === ===

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Andreas Barth
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]: > [ difference between options 2 and 5] > It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the > furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect. Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where n