On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:50:09AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> You are making a sweeping overgeneralization. Let me start by drawing
> some useful analogies:
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to
> fix or modify his own software?
Is it wrong to deprive someone of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free softwa
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:30:30AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your principles
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:35:51AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So why do we need to manage it and distribute it from our servers?
> > Because that's the best way to maintain quality control. Add-on packages
> > from the Debian project must meet th
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:49:46AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> I agree with that we should talk about freedom more often, and
> the discussion about this GR has some meaningful effect. But if
> we lose our users, we will lose our chance to teach people about
> freedom, it will take "just th
** On Jun 13, Hamish Moffatt scribbled:
> > Actually, some of these areas are dumping grounds for software that
> > specifically cannot meat that policy.
>
> _That_ is a bug in policy, IMHO. contrib should not be a dumping
> ground for poor quality packages. I have argued that on debian-devel
** 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 software from
> the Debian Project?
Because many developers and users think and have written so that it would
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > If you really want to show that non-free and contrib are not part of the
> > distribution you should move them out from under "dists".
> > ftp...debian.org/
> > debian/ #
Now you got a point. I just made a mistake, based on the examples people
gave, all that stuff seemed propietary software. I was wrong. Anyway,
my point is still valid for non-free software as well. It is just one
step required for non-free software to become propietary in some cases.
i.e.: wine.
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > And don't you think that it contradicts the, so many times quoted,
> > point 4 of the Social Contract that mentiones *users* as our
> > *primary* priority (the word "users" is put before "free software"
>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:27:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
You won't win an argument by inventing arguments you wish your opponent had
said. Obviously, I did not say that, and neither did I mean to say it. That
should be o
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at "Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:32:16 -0600 (MDT)",
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ftp.debian.org/pub/debian
> ftp.debian.org/pub/debian-support
>
> > Having it outside of the debian/ hierarchy just causes problems for
> > mirrors.
>
> There would be one more `
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * xv: do alternative viewer make what xv does? gtksee, gqview,
> > imagemagick
>
> All make less, some make more (like transparency). I allways wanted to
> have a replacement thats fully free, but I can use xv for free, so why
> both
On Jun 13, Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union wrote:
> I can only encourage you to add the functionality you need to one of
> the free viewers.
FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
The only advantage to xv is that the visua
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union) wrote:
>Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> All make less, some make more (like transparency). I allways wanted to
>> have a replacement thats fully free, but I can use xv for free, so why
>> bother. Thats one of the programs I would writ
On 13 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> > John has said that non-free has ceased to be useful based on the fact that
> > he doesn't actually make use of it, and many others agreed with this
> > assesement. So here is a slightly different perspective.
> Jason, you are so badly distorting my posi
> " " == truename <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
>> I too would be forced to use another dist if the non-free
>> software was no longer maintained by debian.
> this is wrong. Redhat only have ONE cd as their well-organized
> distro, other packages are added by o
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
>
> The only advantage to xv is that the visual schnauzer is probably more
> fun to use than the GIMP's file selector, which (in 1.1.2
First, as Anthony pointed out, we (Debian) haven't deprived any one,
it's the original authors who have done so.
On 13-Jun-00, 01:50 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. Is it wrong to deprive someone of source code to software?
>
> 4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the abi
On 13-Jun-00, 18:14 (CDT), Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> > FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> > combination of the GIMP and xzgv packages in woody.
> >
> > The only advantage to xv is that the visual schna
On 14-Jun-00, 02:31 (CDT), Pablo Baena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is just one step required for non-free software to become
> propietary in some cases. i.e.: wine. It had some kind of home-made
> license and then went to the BSD license. The guy owning wine could
> just sell wine to any compa
> On 14-Jun-00, 02:31 (CDT), Pablo Baena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is just one step required for non-free software to become
> > propietary in some cases. i.e.: wine. It had some kind of home-made
> > license and then went to the BSD license. The guy owning wine could
> > just sell wine to
On 13-Jun-00, 01:57 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...Nor did I say that it is not useful simply because I did not use
> it. Nor, I think, did anyone else support my position on those
> grounds, although plenty supported the opposition on the grounds that
> they personally use
On 13-Jun-00, 01:30 (CDT), John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > What do we need this in a GR for?
> >
> > To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode.
>
> Your prin
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 08:58:48PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jun-00, 18:14 (CDT), Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, everything that you can do with xv can be done with some
> > > combination of the GIMP and xzgv pa
25 matches
Mail list logo
