On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:19:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> > > have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> > > standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments.
> >
>
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 07:19:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:12:21PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> > have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> > standards we all use,
On 04-Mar-02, 17:57 (CST), Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I find a bug in the glibc manual, and read up POSIX to find
> out what it should be, I have to close my eyes for a minute and try
> to forget what I just read before writing a bug report. It would be
> easier to move th
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:31:58PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> However, I don't see why that should give much problems. You don't
> want to change to standards anyhow.
I would.
For example, I would take some of the RFC's, c&p from them, add texinfo
markup and include bits of them in documentat
> > However, free documentation *is* essential to free software.
On 4 Mar 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> standards we all use, should be protected from unautho
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:22:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
> be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
> into primeval chaos.
However, I don't see why that should give much problems. You don
> No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
> be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
> into primeval chaos.
Too late. :)
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:12:21PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments.
> Or do you want Mic
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The T7 countries are all under Boycott. You'd get arrested exporting
> ANYTHING to them.
Well, in that case there are no problems. We don't export to those
countries. However, I can export gcc to the UK and tell them that
they can develop nukes with it.
Scripsit Oliver Elphick
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:45, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > However, free documentation *is* essential to free software.
> If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
> have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
> standa
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:45, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1b) Debian makes a moral stand on free software. Not free licenses,
> > or free books, or free tea, or free beer, or free-for-all wrestling,
> > with all their various meanings of free.
>
> Wh
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1b) Debian makes a moral stand on free software. Not free licenses,
> or free books, or free tea, or free beer, or free-for-all wrestling,
> with all their various meanings of free.
While some might think free beer is essential to free software, they
woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. Software in non-us was not developed inside the US and should
> not be restricted to 'export' into other countries.
Lots of stuff in non-us was developed in the US.
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I
> write to all three lists to get to the right people.
>
> Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
>
> I suppose there has been debate on this subject be
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 12:20:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) It's a license text, and we don't reject a package for being non-DFSG
> free as long as *only* its license text is non-DFSG-free. The license
> text is only required due to copyright laws that presume that the
> exercise of the
I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I write to all
three lists to get to the right people.
Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
I suppose there has been debate on this subject before on other debian lists,
but as I'm not subscribed to more than
17 matches
Mail list logo
