[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
> "Some non-free software has been made to work on Debian. Though this
> software is not at all a part of debian, apt can be used to install
> it. This software has varying licenses which may prevent you from
> using, modifying, or sharing it. Do y
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> Let's create the add-ons directory and move contrib and
Hamish> non-free in there, as Anthony proposed. (I already
Hamish> seconded that.) That's good enough to show it's not part
Hamish> of the distribution, but
On 11 Jun 2000, Colin Walters wrote:
> > "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am curious, where do you get this idea? I have not read anything
> like this in the Debian literature.
>
> The only thing I have read that comes close to saying this is point
> four of the
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 10:54:46PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> If Debian is truly a "free operating system for my computer", then I
> see no contradiction in ceasing to distribute non-free software from
> the Debian FTP sites.
>
> Perhaps this is not what Debian really is though? Many Debian
>
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "What is Debian?
>>
>> Debian is a mostly free operating system (OS) for your
>> computer."
Hamish> Not at all. The distribution contains only 'main' right
Hamish> now, and that's not going to change. non-fr
> That is the message I am using now. I don't think it leaves much room for
> confusing non-free and Debian.
On the contrary, it reads like a very *weak* separation. Suppose instead:
> Debian makes available some non-free software. Though this software is
> not part of Debian proper, it can be
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 11:54:19AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> The 'free' is a hyperlink to the DFSG, so there is no ambiguity there.
> And there is certainly no ambiguity with respect to the word 'is'.
>
> If it is true that a majority of developers feel this way, then
> perhaps it should be c
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Debian a screen comes up and asks if the user would like access to the
> > non-free sections of Debian and it explains what non-free is. Perhaps this
> > should be enhanced and made more clear if there is confusion. Instead the
> > proposal claims removal is neces
** On Jun 12, Colin Walters scribbled:
> > "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marek> No, Debian is obligated to provide *functional* software,
> Marek> that's it. The software should be free, that's the ideal
> Marek> and a goal of this distribution, but th
> "Marek" == Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marek> No, Debian is obligated to provide *functional* software,
Marek> that's it. The software should be free, that's the ideal
Marek> and a goal of this distribution, but the project allows for
Marek> non-free software
** On Jun 11, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > That would be acceptable, but I see just two points. First is a technical
> > one:
> >
> > - if a package is fetched from a site outside of the Debian control, the
> >Debian project cannot guarantee th
** On Jun 11, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> > > *I* am not ready to make any guarantees. Most of that isn't software
> > > I use.
>
> > That you don't use those packages doesn't make them unnecessary.
>
> It makes it unnecessary for me.
I see. So, if you don't use mutt, then you don't care that it
** On Jun 11, Jeff Licquia scribbled:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 12:54:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > No, it isn't. I see that *right now* (and *right now* is when you created
> > your GR) there is no morally honest way to take the software from our users.
>
> This is not at all clear. Af
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to repeat.. if this GR passes, end users will find it extremely hard
> to even learn any new repository exists, let alone what a valid
> sources.list line is. It certianly won't be in the APT documentation.
They might have to look around, indeed
** On Jun 11, John Goerzen scribbled:
> Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer
> > assistants,
>
> I would support such a solution as a compromise, and in fact, have
> already indicated such. As long as Debian does not distribu
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The numbers: (non-free + contrib = total)
> [ prior to this point I have no record I non-free stuff, I do not recall
> if it existed or not. ]
> bo: 69 + 0 = 67 (combined non-free/contrib)
> hamm: 183 + 78 = 261
> slink: 225 + 77 = 302
> potato: 236 + 1
Hi all,
I've just waded through 250+ posts. I'm a developer and also an
active Debian user at work. I work with a bunch of programmers for
Windows/Linux/Solaris - I'm their tech. supprort guy, so I get to
do some sysadmin. work, building disks, fixing faulty hardware -
the works.
If I get the
> " " == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, implementing the infrastructure for this proposal would
> take us 9/10 of the way to implementing package pools (and, in
> any event, the pools from what I've heard are just waiting on
> potato to release so we don
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 03:31:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Debian is about building the best *free* operatign system
And it could be the best only if it is free.
> In the preamble of the social contract:
> "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> c
[snip]
>> reason alone. In particular I'd like to see a little consideration for
>> some of the more diverse groups that are serviced by non-free
[anyone else
>> notice how many Asian fonts are in there?].
[snip]
>For the record, the most of Japanese fonts related packages are
>DFSG c
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Certainly the majority of vocal participants in this debate
Jules> (although whether they represent an actual majority of
Jules> developers would need a vote) have agreed that debian's
Jules> goal to create a (very) go
Hi.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:50:13 -0600 (MDT),
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, the download ratios don't seem to have changed much since the
> last time this came up, still about 5-6% of all downloads from
> ftp.debian.org are for non-free
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 03:31:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Debian is about building the best *free* operatign system
> This is ridiculous.
It's also hyperbole, not all that well argued and not particularly well
related t
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 03:31:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Debian is about building the best *free* operatign system
Certainly this is an important goal of the Debian project.
Is it really the only goal Debian should be permitted to pursue?
Once upon a time, Debian used to be more inc
Hi,
I have seen numerous times the contra-GR argument that pulling non-free from
our users is violating point 4 of the social contract and detrimental to the
goal of building the best operating system possible. Neither is true, as I
try to explain below.
Debian is about building the best *free*
Hi.
(I remove -devel list as well as the address of Ch.Troestler from cc
of this mail. I considered to remove also the address of John, but
left it since I don't know if he read -project list. I left -vote
list also, since this topic is related to coming vote.)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
On Jun 11, Jules Bean wrote:
> > 3. Some agreement that redistributed packages will not be gratuitously
> > repackaged or modified,
>
> Sign them, if that's important?
I don't think it's a signature thing. It's more a problem of
downloading packages, making minor tweaks to the package, and then
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 11:46:31PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> 1. Some sort of way to identify the source of a package. Maintainer
Yes.
> 2. Some master registry of package names.
Yes. Or, a namespace mechanism.
So that package: bind in namespace:corel is really package corel/bind,
not
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > I had thought that the purpose of the `DFSG-free' discriminant was to
> > establish which packages could be distributed without onerous
> > restrictions. It now appears that this pragmatic distinction is
> > retrospectively being reimposed onto the histo
[Moved to -project, follow-ups set, I hope]
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 11:08:16AM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
>
> I had thought that the purpose of the `DFSG-free' discriminant was to
> establish which packages could be distributed without onerous
> restrictions. It now appears that this pragmatic
30 matches
Mail list logo
