Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

> On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative > > to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned > > and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian. It was a > > definitely a bitte

Re: I think We're Done: Debian and Non-Free Services

> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes: Thomas> Not discussing the issue itself, just (respectfully) Thomas> commenting on your reply. Thomas> If there's no valid reason to prefer Github, then it would Thomas> be very easy to just enforce the use only Salsa. Therefore, Thoma

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 10/9/19 4:16 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > > On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging >>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow >>> preferred by the maintainer. >> >> So, if someone is not

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 10/5/19 11:42 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging >> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow >> preferred by the maintainer. > > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > re

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi, On 10/5/19 1:10 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: > I make this comment as the person who some years ago took the initiative > to take over the "Debian" Github group, that was more or less abandonned > and apparently not controlled by somebody related to Debian. It was a > definitely a bitter experie

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi, út 8. 10. 2019 v 10:06 odesílatel Michael Lustfield napsal: > + I can create branches that won't let me force push (git push -f) > + I can create projects that let me push to anything except master > https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/protected_branches.html -- Best regards Ondř

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi Michael On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > - GitHub takes efforts to provide root cause analysis & lessons learned We are all volunteers, which is not the case for GitHub employees. So thank you for volunteering to help the Salsa admins with communication in th

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi Michael On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:49:32AM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote: > - It's significantly more stable > + I've seen "GitLab is not responding" more times than I can keep track of > + I've also seen a large number of 500 and 504 errors (at least 1x/wk) We have around 0,1% failure ra

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 10/8/19 9:49 AM, Michael Lustfield wrote: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200 > Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull >> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more >> than using Salsa? >> >>> You may guess tha

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Le Mardi, Octobre 08, 2019 09:49 CEST, Michael Lustfield a écrit: > On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200 > Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more > > than using Salsa?

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 23:42:50 +0200 Thomas Goirand wrote: > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more > than using Salsa? > > > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you >

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 10/5/19 17:42, Thomas Goirand wrote: > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more > than using Salsa? Because the person already has an account in GitHub, and has code there. And when asked to s

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Thomas Goirand writes: >> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging >> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow >> preferred by the maintainer. > > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > requests and so on, why t

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 11:42:50PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull > requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more > than using Salsa? While I personally think that using something else than Salsa is not

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi Ole, Thanks for your reply. On 10/4/19 8:18 PM, Ole Streicher wrote: > Thomas Goirand writes: >> On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to >>> maintain Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send >>> a pat

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Le Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:40:15PM +0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit : > > And a side note: please accept that others in the project have opinions > that object to yours. Not agreeing with your point of view doesn't mean > that you're silenced or censored, despite you behaving like this. Quite > on the

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

* Ole Streicher: > You may guess that people using github accept pull requests, but you > even can't see whether they actually like them -- there are many reasons > why people use github, and PRs may not necessarily the specific reason > for the repository. And you can't disable this Github featu

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi Thomas, Thomas Goirand writes: > On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to >> maintain Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send >> a patch to the BTS. > > If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Norbert Preining: >>> It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain >>> Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the >>> BTS. >> >> If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he >> wishes to have pull/merge reque

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Sat, 05 Oct 2019, Norbert Preining wrote: > > If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he > > wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise, what's the point? > > Wrong. I don't care for PR, and accept them as well as patches to BTS, > whatever comes. This is FUD

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

> > It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain > > Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the > > BTS. > > If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he > wishes to have pull/merge requests from. Otherwise,

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/13/19 12:51 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote: > Just because you, and I, believe that "No Debian contributor should be > expected or encouraged... ...to use any non-free tools" does not mean > that we should *prevent* them from doing so. Though advertising for a non-free service through the VCS fields

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/13/19 2:35 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > It's based on a false premise. No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain > Debian packages. If you don't want to talk to GitHub, send a patch to the > BTS. If one slenderizes about a particular VCS URL, it means it is where he wishes to have pull/

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/13/19 8:14 AM, Ansgar wrote: > So assume I want to avoid using non-free DNS and CDN services, but still > contribute to Debian. How should that work as long as Debian uses these > services? If you have in mind the CDN used for security updates, well it'd be a nice idea if DSAs were thinking

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

❦ 4 octobre 2019 16:57 +02, Thomas Goirand : >>> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the >>> Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on >>> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as >>> part of the upstream proj

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/16/19 6:53 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 9/12/19 7:49 PM, Ansgar wrote: > >> That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the >> Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on >> services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

A General Resolution might be necessary concerning potential misinterpretation of Debian Social Contract in the project. 1. "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component." Are webservices for example gitlab.com, cloudflare.com or dns.google a required component in Debia

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/12/19 7:49 PM, Ansgar wrote: > That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the > Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on > services such as GitLab or GitHub such as when they are hosted there as > part of the upstream project and/or for bet

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 9/13/19 5:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: >>> "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: >> MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" >> MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join >>

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Le lundi 16 septembre 2019 à 04:56:19+0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) a écrit : > > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > >> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? > >> > >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 > >> > >> Yao Wei > > > > I have a

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

> On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? >> >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 >> >> Yao Wei > > I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email. > > Can you develop your point ? >

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > > Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services like Github but do n

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:37:58PM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I would not like to make cooperation with upstream more complicated. > > I agree with that. However, I'm not sure if it would make it harder. How does > this cooperation work, where you need your packaging to be on the same host a

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Le 13 septembre 2019 00:54:47 GMT+02:00, Yao Wei a écrit : >On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on >> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits >for >> the project. >

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Sam Hartman writes ("Debian and Non-Free Services"): > I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > > Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 19-09-12 20 h 35, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. >> >> Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git >> recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On September 14, 2019 12:29:19 AM GMT+09:00, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Is anyone actually doing that? I think this entire thread is nothing >more >than a stalking horse for Ian's crusade to get everyone to use dgit and >we >should just move on. +100 Best comment till now. "Crusade" is the w

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Friday, September 13, 2019 10:52:37 AM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > > "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: > MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" > MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join > MJ> github to use its private version of pull requ

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

> "MJ" == MJ Ray writes: MJ> I have some sympathy with the "send a patch to bugs.debian.org" MJ> view. Do any developers ignore those and tell people to join MJ> github to use its private version of pull requests? I know I MJ> have patches ignored in there but I don't remem

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Fri Sep 13 12:06:35 GMT+01:00 2019 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov : > чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman : > > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to > > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are > > acceptable here so long as they are princip

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Bas Wijnen wrote: > note that the proposal is not to say "our users must not be allowed to use > github". It's "our developers must not be allowed to force contributors to > use github". Scott Kitterman wrote: > No one is forced to use any VCS to maintain Debian packages. If you don't > want t

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools ZOMG. IMO one of the less good ideas brought to this list. I will refrain from further comments for everyones benefit, Ansgar brought up the most relevant objections already. -- cheers,

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 20:30, Sam Hartman : > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools > > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary > web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 12/09/2019 18:30, Sam Hartman wrote: Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. I don't believe that anyone within Debian will have a problem with this statement. This

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On 15523 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools I think the subject does not fit the content. Its more like "Forbid DDs to use certain services". No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working to improve Debian, to use non-free tool

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: >> > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools >> > >> > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working >> > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. >> >> Does this include: >> >> - non

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Hi! On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 00:35:23 +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: > >Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of > >services > > like Github it would pass. I very much doubt that, TBH, but… > >He proposed the foll

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On September 12, 2019 5:30:24 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: > >I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > >Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services like Github but do not forb

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Ansgar wrote: > That would just lead to packages using these to no longer including the > Vcs-* fields... There are some valid reasons to host packages on Indeed, that will happen. Best Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Acce

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on > supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for > the project. Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections?

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:49:26PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools > > > > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working > > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. > > Does this include: > > - non-free firmware on Debian hardware,

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 à 13:30:24-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > > Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services like Github but do

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:30:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > He proposed the following text for such a GR. > > I think such a discussion is better on -project. > > [1]: > > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > [2]: https://lists.debian.o

Re: Debian and Non-Free Services

> Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools > > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. Does this include: - non-free firmware on Debian hardware, - non-free software for interacting with hardware, - non-free backup s

Debian and Non-Free Services

I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use. Ian disagreed with this recommendation. I respon

Re: Debian and non-free

On Saturday 2008-09-20, Ben Finney wrote: > cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain > > speach in a certain forum > > No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all* > public forums. Generally, only a state has

Re: Debian and non-free [censorship]

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all* > public forums. Generally, only a state has that power. Not in the Collins English Dictionary. Wildly OT and doesn't matter for this subject, though. Should I update my svenl FAQ? Rega

Re: Debian and non-free

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> I think that dilutes the message that those packages are >> non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the >> documentation under a free license. >> >> main >>

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing >> the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough >> infrastructure to handle the machines. >> > I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain >

Re: Debian and non-free

cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Censorship is nothing more or less then banning/prohibiting certain > speach in a certain forum No. Censorship is banning/prohibiting certain speech in *any and all* public forums. Generally, only a state has that power. The crucial difference is that, in thi

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It most certainly is not. I can attest to that personally, having been >> involved in and followed multiple FSF projects for many years. It is >> an expectation for all GNU projects. > Expectation and advice, but no

Re: Debian and non-free

On Thursday 2008-09-18, Joey Schulze wrote: > David Paleino wrote: > > However, I still believe that censorship is a BadThing©, and everyone > > should be given the chance to speak. But, well, I don't know what > > happened with Sven and I don't even want to touch the topic. > > It's not censo

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [...] the rule that the FSF has about not linking to > >> any non-free software from their sites, [...] > > That rule is a myth. > > It most certainly is not. I can attest

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to >> follow something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to >> any non-free software from their sites, [...] > > That rule is a myth

Re: Debian and non-free

On 11512 March 1977, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: >> I think that dilutes the message that those packages are >> non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the >> documentation under a free license. >> main >> non-free >> programs >>

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > My understanding of RMS's position is that he would like Debian to follow > something like the rule that the FSF has about not linking to any non-free > software from their sites, [...] That rule is a myth. Their campaign sites like http://badvista

Re: Debian and non-free

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like this idea, but without mentioning FSF directly. More entities than > just the FSF use the GNU FDL for licensing. I agree. The FSF also have no "free document definition" or similar and I believe their position on documents is a convenienc

Re: Debian and non-free

Manoj Srivastava wrote: I think that dilutes the message that those packages are non-free, and reduces pressure on the authors to release the documentation under a free license. main non-free programs documents firmware

Re: Debian and non-free

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:59:54 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > The listmaster said, when i asked them to lift the ban on debian-vote > for the DPL electoral campaign, arguing that the electoral campaign is > an exercice in democracy, and thus anyone should be allowed to ask the > candidates questions. T

Re: Debian and non-free

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:53:48 +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > How about Debtags? > > You can't include/exclude things from your sources.list based on > debtags. That could be a margin of improvement to apt-get (and aptitude, and $man

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:10:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > non-free > programs > documents > firmware > art-work > games I like it, except for the hyphen. On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 09:21:42AM +0900, Charles Pless

Re: Debian and non-free

David Paleino wrote: > > I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your > > message but one of Sven??? please don't forward messages that you don't > > endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims). > > Ok, sorry for that :) > However, I still believe that censorshi

Re: Debian and non-free

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:22:03 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your > message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't > endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims). Ok, sorry for that :) However, I sti

Re: Fw: Debian and non-free

I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims). > debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent > encumbered stuff, liable of a

Re: Debian and non-free

Le Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 07:17:45PM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. > > > Someday > > > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :) > > > > No

Re: Debian and non-free

Em Qua, 2008-09-17 às 08:15 +0200, David Paleino escreveu: > If we create non-free.org, who needs non-free, will find it. Google is their > friend :) Google is non-free. Greetings. -- marcot Página: http://marcotmarcot.iaaeee.org/ Blog: http://marcotmarcot.blogspot.com/ Correio: [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: >> Michael Banck wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: >> > > >> > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. >> > >> > I think we should consider (post-

Fw: Debian and non-free

Inizio messsaggio inviato: Data: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:42:08 +0200 Da: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-project@lists.debian.org Oggetto: Re: Debian and non-free On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:15

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:38:21AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Michael Banck wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. > > > > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a > > couple of

Re: Debian and non-free

Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. > > I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting up non-free in a > couple of sub-categories. Personally, I'd prefer "fsf-free", but > "non-free-docs" would be j

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:24:52AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Non-free is there just because the free counterparts aren't optimal. Someday > > these will, and non-free will just disappear from Debian :) > > Non-free is for GNU documentation. I think we should consider (post-lenny) splitting

Re: Debian and non-free

В Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:16:57 +0200, Daniel Baumann написа: > were unaware that they also have to leave the 'Copyright (C) Daniel > Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' lines aka author information, and they > never fixed it. Are you talking about

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Filipus Klutiero wrote: I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough infrastructure to handle the machines. I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallm

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And, > regarding the concern of RMS about "publicizing" this location... well, we do > *NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use > that. > > If we

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:40:17PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > In another 10 years (less, I hope!), the world will be more conscious about > Free Software, and its principles. And everyone will be suspicious over > closed-source. Am I a dreamer? Yes. The closed-source software word is accelerat

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Filipus Klutiero wrote: > domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote: > >> Thus, the debian.org site and the software in it should not refer to the >> existence of non-free.org in such a way as to suggest getting non-free >> software from there. >> >> I tried for years to convince Debian

Re: Debian and non-free

David Paleino wrote: > Probably :) > If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to > *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd > happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't -- I need it [work, > university, $foo]). > Instead of r

Re: Debian and non-free

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:09:22 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > Instead of removing non-free, I'd support the idea of non-free.org, and if > > that will make the FSF endorse us again, why not? :) > > > > Non-free is there just because th

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:45:01 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Essentially, this has gone backwards and forwards for years. Although > David's wording is good, now is not the time - we need to get Lenny out. Mine is a general discussion, Lenny is not concerned, and probably neither Squeeze, nor

Re: FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Translated to the current way things are done, this means that according > to Richard, the Debian website or Debian refer to the existence of the > non-free component in a way that suggests getting non-free software from > there. My understanding of

FSF not considering Debian as Free (Re: Debian and non-free)

I could help to set-up the infrastructure and providing the non-free.org domain, but I don't think I have enough infrastructure to handle the machines. I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time. I don't think the problem is the domain name hosting non-free. Richard Stallman wrote: Thus, the de

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote: > If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to > *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd You'd better. If the GR only has two choices (remove non-free to the bitbucket and the default), th

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > No. I agree with you, and actually proposed a General Resolution 8 > > years ago to get rid of non-free

Re: Debian and non-free

Florian Weimer dijo [Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:57:43PM +0200]: > > Does RMS know all this? I don't think he'd support such kind of > > behaviour :) > > Stallman tends to ignore moral rights/droit d'auteur concepts. Except, of course, when "moral rights" should prepend the Linux kernel with the GNU/

Re: Debian and non-free

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how many > times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy) before > applying :)... > Did I miss something? No. I agree with you, and actually

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > vote :-) > > Probably :) > If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR to > *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some users, necessary (I'd > happily --purge flashplugin-nonfree, but I can't

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:27:28 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:24:18PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > vote :-) > > > > Probably :) > > If I were a DD (-- and I'm NM), I'd think a bit more before proposing a GR > > to *completely* remove non-free. Non-free is, for some use

Re: Debian and non-free

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:48 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:08PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > Please don't take this as a provoking mail, I'm in NM, and God knows how > > many times I've read the Social Contract (and DFSG, and DMUP, and $policy) > > before applying :

Re: Debian and non-free

* David Paleino: > Does RMS know all this? I don't think he'd support such kind of > behaviour :) Stallman tends to ignore moral rights/droit d'auteur concepts. The GPL requires does not require preservation of the original copyright notices. It requires "appropriate" copyright notices, but the

Re: Debian and non-free

Sven Luther wrote: > Well, it would have helped if : > > 1) we didn't vote a GR worded in such a way as to fully discourage the > existing kernel team to work on the non-free firmware problems. [..] > But this not being the way which was chosen, what do you expect ? In > france we say "qui s

  1   2   >