I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days
at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to
corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will
do so immediately at my
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 10:38 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > He didn't use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. It was clear to me that
> > he was speaking as a developer, not as the DPL.
>
> But he has repeatedly suggested when speaking as
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Anthony Towns" wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
>>of the social contract as:
>>
>>"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
>> component."
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:08:08 -0600, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj wrote:
>> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
>> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
>> define: computer program gives: , | * A computer program is a
>> set of
Am 2006-08-16 11:08:04, schrieb Russ Allbery:
> I do not want my e-mail address munged or hidden on any of my bug reports
> and will get fairly upset if that happens. My e-mail address is on my bug
> reports so that people can contact me about those bug reports if need be,
> and I do not want it
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:23:20 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this
> amendment. The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting
> an exception nor redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a
> latent def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever have
>been necessary:
>
>Package: freedoom
It would still have been useful, since the doom-wad-shareware package is
in non-free and is going to stay there no matter the outcome of the GR.
It would he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>to, I thought I'd share my personal view on the reasons why would bother to
>ask for free firmware in the first place, and what message I think we would
>send if we cease demanding it.
I can't see how you can claim this, considering this part of the
proposed GR saying the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than contributing directly to the current discussion on what types
> of bitstreams we should or not not apply our definition of "Free Software"
> to, I thought I'd share my personal view on the reasons why would bother to
> ask for free firmware
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever have
> been necessary:
>
> Package: freedoom
>
> ...as we could just distribute the original proprietary WAD files by iD
> software in main.
This is wrong. Steve's GR only allo
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > I dream about the moment when all people will feel it that way, and
> > about the time when the Debian Project will purge the "non-free"
> > section (containing non-free software) and the "contrib" section
> > (containing free software that is in chains), thus remainin
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
> i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL PROT
Le jeu 24 août 2006 10:51, Yavor Doganov a écrit :
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:01:51 -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [...] To do so would be to undermine our pledge to keep the Debian
> > system "100% Free", as our Social Contract puts it. [...]
your quote is unfair, it should have been:
> > The
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:01:51 -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...] To do so would be to undermine our pledge to keep the Debian
> system "100% Free", as our Social Contract puts it. [...]
Thank you very much for the entire message, I hope that it will be
influential to the outcome of this discu
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> He didn't use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. It was clear to me that
> he was speaking as a developer, not as the DPL.
But he has repeatedly suggested when speaking as a developer that
non-DDs are kind of a second-class speaker on
Hmm, note to self: mutt doesn't send the Subject: header to ispell...
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:01:51AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Rather than contributing directly to the current discussion on what types
> of bitstreams we should or not not apply our definition of "Free Software"
> to, I t
I found the juxtaposition of two articles on the front page of LWN this
week[1] to be interesting, and it motivated me to put down some thoughts
which I also posted as a reply to one of them.
Rather than contributing directly to the current discussion on what types
of bitstreams we should or not n
17 matches
Mail list logo
