On 11/03/2017 07:21 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:24:21PM -0400, Marty wrote:
The debate was fierce even within Debian, and the final vote was very
close. The 1% that decide for the rest, couldn't decide.
So you're saying that you're a strong propo
orrupt to the bone. Instead of adopting corporate slogans
start with "follow the money" and at least remove voting privileges from
paid members.
Marty
Linas Žvirblis wrote:
That does not sound like a good argument? Well think about it: would you
really be that happy if somebody told you that you must drop Debian for
some other system you know little or nothing about, AND you still have
to make sure everything works, AND do your regular job at
Lee Braiden wrote:
On Sunday 05 Jun 2005 19:07, klkl lklk wrote:
Hi all,
Just wondering of where to start because i want to give a try making
my own drivers for conexant winmodems (open-source, of course :-) ) I
have good knowledge of C, Java and now learning C++. The probelm is
that I now no
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
debian-user dropped, because I don't read that list.
Fine, but please cc replies because I'm not on the debian-project list.
Marty wrote:
I accept this vote regarding "Free Software," but I don't accept your
implicit re-definition of the w
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
>
> "1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:08:37AM -0400, Marty wrote:
Not at all. As I read the FSF and Stallman's position on the matter,
that's what intended. To me what seems crackbrained and radical is this
notion that everything in Debian is "software" and must t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you arguing that the "right" to "see the
author's work as the author intended it to be seen" is more important
than that? (I'll pass on the question of whether such a right exists,
except to note that I've never heard of s
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
missed by main point.
You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designed to protect
the author's rights. It's designed to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
I can't tell if your arguments are defensible because you didn't make
any (except for your last one, which depends on the validi
Michael Poole wrote:
Marty writes:
Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
user, but does so in a way that promotes sharing of information as
opposed to "hoarding."
This is a rath
Olive wrote:
The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
and cannot be changed nor removed. The advertising close of the old BSD
license is free (by rule nr 10 of the social contract) and cannot be
Get a legal college degree Instantly:
Here's the ultimate solution for anybody who needs to get a degree instantly
with no
attendance requirements or hassle of any kind. Get recognition for your
experience. Give us
a call @ 1.206.666.6485
narrate initiate torture actinium pixel acadia eigenst
13 matches
Mail list logo
