Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Drew Parsons
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 22:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > [Note Mail-Followup-To:] Noted, but the problem is not everyone is subscribed to debian-project, which makes continuity of the discussion somewhat awkward... > > The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale. > It

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:10:34PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 18:56]: > > This is precisely the reason why I think it's so completely beside the > > point, from Debian's POV, to worry about whether SPI is capable of > >

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess As of this post, you had three responses. Two were only sent to d-project (which makes sense; discussing this stuff on d-private is silly). > that means the r

Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.

2005-04-14 Thread dann frazier
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 20:06 -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: > On Wednesday 13 April 2005 7:52 pm, John Hasler wrote: > > Then complaints about the posted status are not criticism of you. > > Oh. Good point. I guess I'm mashing Andreas' criticism in with Dave's > message. > Maybe that isn't what he

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Adam McKenna
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:22:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > > Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a > > docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc. > > Wh

The source of FSF policy

2005-04-14 Thread Thaddeus H. Black
Several of you work closely with GNU people. A question for you. Is the FSF a body like the IETF, W3C or Debian in which stakeholders make reasonably collaborative policy decisions together? Or is "FSF policy" more or less another name for "the views of Richard M. Stallman"? (Or does the realit

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Mark Brown
") Fcc: +sent-mail Mail-Followup-To: debian-project@lists.debian.org On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: [Note Mail-Followup-To:] > [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess > that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Adam McKenna
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for > Fourier transforms, and wants to pick out parts of the text in the > invariant section to write his paper. It seems that he could do this with a simple footnote

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a > docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc. > Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the >

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but > > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one? > > I wasn't aware that people had expressed proble

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > er, are you aware that an openoffice document is basically a zip file of a > coupple of xml documents (plus included pictures if any)? > -> you definately /can/ edit them in a generic text editor, in fact I've > done so

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
On Thursday 14 April 2005 19:25, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Don Armstrong
[Replying only to -project, since there's *ABSOLUTELY NO POINT* in having something on -private when it's already on -project.] On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly ca

Re: [Spi-trademark] Re: debian domains

2005-04-14 Thread John Goerzen
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:44:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.] Nor am I. [ much snippage ] > I'm CCing John Goerzen, the SPI President -- John, if you think it would be > a good idea, please ask David to add an SPI Trademark Committee update

Re: [Spi-trademark] Re: debian domains

2005-04-14 Thread Branden Robinson
[I am not subscribed to the spi-trademark list.] On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:21:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those > > mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our > > trademark, we actually nee

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Michael Banck
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private > mean? It means follow-ups to Matthew's orginal post should have gone to debian-project only, but not everybody seemed to honor that. Michael -- Michae

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > > http://people.debian.org/~wi

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private mean? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > fsf-free > > > > Should this rather be GFDL-free ?? > > I read it more like 'Giv

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt > > > > > > This inherits its definition of Transpar

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'. > > > > I call things by their real

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt > > > > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but > > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better

Fwd: Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Daniel Burrows
This shoulda gone here too (Matthew, you can forward my other message if you want to forward your reply). Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\ | "Systems in which an event can happen before itself do| | not seem to

Re: non-free but distributable packages and kernel firmware

2005-04-14 Thread Michael Banck
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > fsf-free > > Should this rather be GFDL-free ?? I read it more like 'Give me what the FSF thinks is Free'. Narrowing it down to the GFDL would needlessly

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Thursday 14 April 2005 10:11 am, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far.  I guess >  that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more >  interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.] Personally I haven't responded b

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Matthew Wilcox
[I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.] On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdoc

Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.

2005-04-14 Thread John Goerzen
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:22:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:44:33PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: > > I didn't post that status nor are we actively monitoring it. Someone from > > Alpha needs to get proactive and run the ball if they care about that > > machine. >

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation. > > Assuming I agree, what's that got to do with standards documents > (or specifications, if you like)? RFCs, for example, describe > protocols which is not

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'. > > I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a > specification promoted by a self-pro

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Andreas Barth
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050414 13:45]: > * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14 13:25]: > > > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't > > > been taken up on his offer. > > > > As far as I know we're not short on offers. Al

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14 13:25]: > > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't > > been taken up on his offer. > > As far as I know we're not short on offers. Alexander Wirt also offered > an Alpha. Yes, and these offers are the reason I haven't sug

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Andreas Barth
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050414 13:15]: > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't > been taken up on his offer. As far as I know we're not short on offers. Alexander Wirt also offered an Alpha. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arco

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-14 12:10]: > > Has anyone asked the DPL to authorize purchasing new drives for > > lully? Martin, is this feasible? > Yes, sure. It might be better though to ship the box to someone who can host it and who knows about Alphas

Re: getting lully back on-line [Was, Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.]

2005-04-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 18:56]: > This is precisely the reason why I think it's so completely beside the > point, from Debian's POV, to worry about whether SPI is capable of > processing donations when we're organizationally incapable of making sure > they're put to good us

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > duplicated, or a blan

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:38:24AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote: > On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them. > > So are laws? Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. My point (which is not necessarily something

Re: GFDL freedoms

2005-04-14 Thread Ean Schuessler
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them. So are laws? -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Re: I'll be a son of a bitch.

2005-04-14 Thread Ean Schuessler
Adam believes that it boots off of IDE rather than SCSI but isn't 100% sure. The unit does have both IDE and SCSI. On Wednesday 13 April 2005 11:43 pm, Martin Schulze wrote: > If it only lacks a boot drive, this can probably be arranged. I assume, > that lully read SCSI, so either an older SCSI