On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:46:08PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I see no reason why this has to be a problem. We do not have
> namespace conflicts now, even between non-us and the other archives.
Because they're supported by our archive maintainers. You're
proposing a non-free which is not.
Ha
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> >We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> >community. We will place their interests firs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> So if you're certain not to agree, then don't keep posting the same
> thing over and over again. Not everyone is thick headed and unwilling
> to hear or consider other positions. If there are people for whom
> absolutely no argument or evidence
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:23PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If not, then I ask how much sense it makes for Debian Developers 20
> years from now to be bound by a document which says we make available
> an FTP archive of non-free software. What do we do when FTP goes the
> way of UUCP?
i
I have been reading a bit of the discussion regarding the inclusion of
non-free in Debian. Although I'm not a Debian developer or maintainer,
it's hard for me be quiet.
I very much appreciate open source software both for the ethic of open
source and for the quality that often emerges from open
On 16 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-fre
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 03:43:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > And, lastly, Debian providing all this makes non-free software easier to
> > maintain and easier to obtain, and, IMO, making life easier is a moral
> > good too.
> apt can pull from anywhere.
And dinstall? The BTS? The mirror netwo
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > whim.
>
> Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
>
> I see an amend
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:39:11PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> sources.list. Nobody has yet shown me why merely being on
> debian.org means that it has to be associated with the Debian
> distribution.
Given this very point, why the GR?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMA
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, John. You're going to talk yourself blue in the face long before
> you are going to convince some people on this list of your position.
> You're welcome to keep on trying, however.
So if you're certain not to agree, then don't keep posting the sam
Nicely Said!
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> Before everyone becomes huffy over my last statement, please let me
> explain. Our definition of free (i.e., the DFSG) is arbitrary. It is
> not some divine revelation, handed down from above and written in stone.
> Mostly it is a compromi
On 15-Jun-00, 23:06 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 13-Jun-00, 01:57 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > non-free systems), I do not see what is "unforgivable" about opposing
> > a resolution that asks our users t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote:
> For the sake of the argument, I'll accept in this case your premise
> that non-free software helps users get their work done. Even if I
> assume that, let us ask this: why does this non-free software have to
> be distributed by Debian?
Well, it doesn't,
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:33:17PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > My proposal does not throw out the social contract. It strengthens
> > it. I fail to see how you can call supporting and spreading non-free
> > software "good, valuable principles." Th
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > >
> > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> >
> > Namespace conflicts for one.
>
> I see no reason why th
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > ** On Jun 13, John Goerzen scribbled:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
> > >
> > > Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free
Liberally snipping here, and I've only caught that portion of the discussion
that's crossed over to -vote, as I'm not subscribed to -devel. Also IANADD,
just a user for the past 4 years or so.
John, I have one question on the paragraph below:
- Original Message -
From: "John Goerzen" <[E
** On Jun 16, John Goerzen scribbled:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
>
> > > > > We could manage non-free separately but quality control would suffer.
> > > >
> > > > People keep claiming this but nobody has yet shown why.
> > >
> > > Namespace conflicts for one.
> > - version c
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote:
>
> > What do we do in a hypothetical future where non-free software no
> > longer exists for general purpose applications? (I.e., the only
> > remaining non-free software is so proprietary -- or so marginal in
> > its utility that we are not permitte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote:
> What do we do in a hypothetical future where non-free software no
> longer exists for general purpose applications? (I.e., the only
> remaining non-free software is so proprietary -- or so marginal in
> its utility that we are not permitted to distri
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:44:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> You did not say it, but the guidelines you were advocating using for
> determing which software is included lead to that conclusion. If you
Where did I say that? Please stop p
22 matches
Mail list logo
