On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:29:16AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> where it's reasonably justified; I think (though I wish it weren't true)
> that some things like old RFCs are unlikely to be republished under a Free
> license anytime soon (and some might never be, since the authors are dead;
> Jon Post
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:52:08AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> > a useful service.
>
> People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
People could also provide everything else Debian does. Th
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
> >>Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> >> of our Social Contract?
> > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. T
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"?
In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030524 13:08]:
> Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some
> of the desire, doesn't it?
I think a distribution system with an emphasis on free software, also
helping with non-free bits one can not get rid from is something useful
to many p
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> a useful service.
People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
[...policy vs users?...]
> Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF
> of recently?
I don
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
>> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
>> of our Social Contract?
> No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
> non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR you
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Free software sadly
> needs some time to fit in al the niches, as much too few institutions
> have adopted it, and good code just needs time.
Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some
of the desire, doesn't it?
> [..
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening.
Such as? And was uploading to non-free a temporary measure to prepare
a package while the copyright holder deliberated?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http:/
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:30:52PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
> > in some way.
>
> This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
If Debian is going to declare
MJ Ray wrote:
> > (And thus makes it easier to
> > apply pressure to change the licence).
>
> Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result
> of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before?
Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening.
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030522 16:11]:
> > I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
> > in some way.
> This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
But it is a reason, why the "mozilla now exists" does not change the
situation. It once w
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
> in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
> I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable
> alternatives (not by c
* Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030522 06:24]:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> > first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> > definition of free software whic
15 matches
Mail list logo
