Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it
> > ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These
> > documents are not going to become free in the
[ Disclaimer: I supposedly have CVS access, last I was told, and I]
[ certainly do most of the work to ensure that GCC will work on the ]
[ proto-port to NetBSD; apart from that, and reading both debian-gcc ]
[ and debian-legal, you probably have to ask Matthias Klose for a final
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
>Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
>interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
>priority between now and the release?
I believe that
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
> > > bother. Now they should bother.
> > Where was
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
> > bother. Now they should bother.
>
> Where was this said? The only statement I've seen is that these
> bugs will not
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so
> > they won't be any better off.
> And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if
> they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case,
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> > > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
> > > anyone else is. If you must poin
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
> > anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at
> > the package m
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:22:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> >Documentation License?
>
> Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up we
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release mas
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> > manuals out now.
>
> I don't mean to pick on you
On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as "official"
[...]
Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?
[...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.
Don't they al
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote:
> My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the
> GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our
> developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with
> things like doxygen-generated libstdc
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> manuals out now.
I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
statements.
I hope
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
Branden Robinson writes:
> There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
> seldom bothers with such things. We go y
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well,
as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. It ain't
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Hi,
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social
Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that
develops upon de
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing
non-techn
Hi,
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Wouter Vanden Hove
http://www.opencursus.be
http://textbook.wikipedia.org
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
20 matches
Mail list logo
