g any action. But if what you wrote *was* reasonably read as
being harsh (even if your intention was not to communicate in that way),
what would be the ideal end goal of mediation? Teaching you how to
communicate more effectively seems like something that's outside the
project's respon
matter.
You shouldn't be deprived of the right to express your incorrect
opinion, but there's no reason anyone should be obliged to give you
space to do so - and there's no reason to prioritise your desire to
voice your incorrect opinion over a recognition that that opinion
tandards, but it's not
reasonable to hold them to superhuman standards.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:49:12AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 2019-12-13 09:56, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > When someone explicitly says that they refuse to recognise part of your
> > humanity it's natural to have an emotional reaction to that. It's
> > reasonab
Just in case anyone's wondering - I checked with Mary-Anne Wolf (who I
met at Libreplanet some years ago) and she didn't send this mail.
Someone faked her identity.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 04:59:27AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Just in case anyone's wondering - I checked with Mary-Anne Wolf (who I
> met at Libreplanet some years ago) and she didn't send this mail.
> Someone faked her identity.
And on the offchance that the subtext h
ce, other than such Participant's
Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then
any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and
2.2(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used, sold,
distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that Participant."
2.1(b) and 2.2(b) grant you patent licenses.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ontrol of free software to large
> corporations.
Perhaps you should killfile less of the thread.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-09-19 13:24:06 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> who believe that licenses which terminate if you allege infringement
>> of
>> a software patent in that software should be free. Is there an
safe.
>
> Why do you assume that company B's claims must have to do with the original
> software, or even with software at all?
I'd certainly feel that licenses that attempt to restrict non-software
patent action ought to be non-free. I don't see any way that a licen
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The GPL rejects users who want to distribute binaries without source.
>> The MPL rejects users who want to sue the licensor for infringement of
>> patents con
ware patents.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n in any way.
I assume he means that his complaints to ccai are being bounced, rather
than that he's rejecting mail.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> It's on www.ccai.com.
>
> Perhaps somewhere on the site, but I don't see it on the main page. I
> suppose he must have gone through the sites and made a list of "companies"
> he t
go into non-free,
> since the terms governing its use are also not DFSG compliant, who are
> we really trying to kid?
I think that that's an argument for the logo being under the wrong
license (and hence us having fucked up in the past) rather than the DFSG
being wrong.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hanges in those freedoms.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that free documentation should have
all the freedoms that we think should be provided by free software. Do
you believe it needs more freedoms? Fewer freedoms? A slightly different
set of freedoms?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ause the social
contract no longer includes the word "software" in point 1.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ent as to why
documentation needs different freedoms to executable code. The existence
of this thread is a good opportunity to try to find some.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tware was removed, but never
mind.
> We only talk about software in our social contract. There's no official
> statement that I know of that defines software to be that.
We don't actually talk about software at all in our social contract. We
did do until April, though.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
meet all of these? If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are
less useful for documentation than executables?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd put online afterwards, of course).
-private is not always used appropriately. This is irritating, but it's
not a breach of the social contract in any way whatsoever.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for
>> documentation than executables?
>
> I always go back to the technical standards when asked tha
are
> doing is compatible with or contradictory to our aims or not.
We can provide the logo under a free copyright license but fairly strict
trademark license. A restrictive copyright license prevents legitimate
modifications as well, which isn't what we want.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
alent to trying to ship an entirely free distribution in
1985 - we have some free components, but there's no free versions of
their dependencies.
Until we've actually made a start on removing that dependency, I think
it's unreasonable to punish our users over it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmends: relationship on the firmware-providing packages).
That doesn't quite solve the problem of drivers outside the main kernel
tree. This is the case for a large amount of current wireless hardware,
irritatingly.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> In the firmware case, the choice is rather different. At present, the
>> choice is not between free firmware or non-free firmware. The choice is
>> between non-free firmware on disk or non-free firmware in
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:36:03AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> In the firmware case, the choice is rather different. At present, the
>> choice is not between free firmware or non-free firmware. The choice is
>> between n
you choose a desktop install, the default environment on first boot
is Gnome.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-05 07:36]:
>> If you choose a desktop install, the default environment on first boot=20
>> is Gnome.
>
> Yes but is this the intention of debian to identify itself
> wit
a technical decision that is incompatible with business
decisions made by members of the DCC, will the DCC members remain
compatible with Debian even if it means losing out in certain markets?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
haps you should speak to more users? Andrew certainly has a
reputation outside the developers, and it's not a good one.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
>> contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
>
> Oh? As far as I can se
e both official
subprojects), I haven't seen any of the other distributions claim that
Debian has been in the loop when the vast majority of the developers,
well, haven't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
derivative rather than part of the main project? Alternatively, are
there any plans to become an official Debian subproject?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=4921 has an interview with Bruce
Perens, where he repeatedly uses the name "Debian Common Core" rather
than DCC. If the idea is that DCC stands for "Debian Common Core" in
the same way that NT stands for "New Technology", i
t.
You said that DCC would become part of Debian. That's Debian's decision,
not yours.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2005 15:44 schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>> You said that DCC would become part of Debian. That's Debian's decision,
>> not yours.
>
> No, I said "shall" which, to the best of my
ebianshop.com is run by the same people
that keep inviting Debian to turn up at UK conferences and, uh, sell
t-shirts and stuff. They don't seem terribly deterred)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in
meetings.
It's an entirely reasonable suggestion that Debian-UK be required to
follow the DPL's requests regarding disbursement. If you'd ever made it,
I doubt anyone would have objected.
(I do apologise for repeatedly using the word "you" here, despite it
being a pu
development by
> other businesses).
That would actually be "Representing Debian at the Gnome advisory board
meetings", as described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/12/msg00276.html . The rest
of your responses show the same sort of level of misunderstanding of
what'
drink for the
volunteers afterwards, yes.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m pretty sure that's it right there. And getting people's names
> wrong when replying to email is really quite pitiful...
It's his name. It may not be what he prefers to be called, but that's an
entirely separate issue.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
complaining)
c) It's Just Wrong (which is a bit difficult to argue against)
But, as is so often the case, it's hard to know why the current
situation has arisen. I guess the real question that we should be
dealing with is:
Is it inappropriate for an organisation that is closely linked to Deb
;t first get Debian/SPI to agree with them. If
> they had then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The current situation of "Why Debian doesn't sell CDs". I've no idea why
that's the way it is. What historical process led to this situation?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e the people that provide us with CDs. It's /possible/ that in
the absence of Debian selling CDs, other companies would have sprung up
to do so - but that's fairly extreme handwaving. No evidence has ever
been presented that this situation discourages anyone.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EM
Merle Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When it comes to the technical side of things, policy follows practice.
>
> So why flout previous policy? Presumably there's some past
> practice which caused it, even if
Modesto Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> < Manoj> I have seen debian booths selling stuff at every conference
>> since '97
>>
>> Because policy hasn't matched practice for a very long
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
>
> The majority (all!) of lice
re made known to the
project as a whole. It'd potentially make it easier to ensure that they
happen.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ubuntu tries so hard to be Debian without actually contributing back to=20
> Debian. Let them compare on their own channel.
The above might variously be described as "not entirely accurate",
"wrong" or even "com
ist admins) may be overruled by a simple
majority in a GR. I'm not quite sure how that could be considered "above
the law".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
working on
those with Colin Watson. There's also the problem that the stock kernel
(Debian and upstream) doesn't yet support the hardware, but that should
be rectified soon.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
documented in section 4.1 of the constitution)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be altered via the constitution.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ion doesn't appear to allow it?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an derivatives have been binary incompatible with Debian
itself. Ubuntu is hardly different from other derivatives in this
respect.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns wrote:
> What if we introduced the concept of "area" maintenance? Like saying
> "Matthew Garrett is part of our hardware support team, so can thus NMU
> any package that needs changes to support that release goal." with the
> proviso that a bug gets
s configured
to automatically use that device node. In general, the integration work
stems from packages that provide hardware support plus packages that
depend on that hardware.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsu
;s
shipped by Debian", but we could also define it as "A system consisting
of a computer and a Debian installation" or "Whatever is provided by
Debian and run on the host processor".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything other than cost us
users without providing any extra freedom.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ble
> interface and the kernel had a bochs included by default to run them?
No. There's plenty of hardware with free drivers, and I think that us
refusing to provide the non-free ones does make a difference. I run no
non-free drivers on any of my hardware. At the point where it'
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
>> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
>> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
&
rmware-type
material (I think I even proposed doing this some time ago), and I think
there'd be an argument for including it on the CDs by default. At the
very least, it'd make it possible for people to make a choice that they
feel non-free firmware is acceptable without going so far
such a need for the DM concept.
I'd like to be able to maintain my packages without having to
worry about the rest of Debian.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is present in an EEPROM. Not a great argument.
>
> Except then it does not have to interface with the kernel ABI and
> cause headaches for our kernel maintainers.
Nor does loadable firmware. Are you confusing it with closed-source
kernel code like in madwifi?
--
Matthew Garrett
But I have to admit that i
> didn't read the source since it works well on my card.
The Atheros chipsets don't use firmware. The closed-source part of the
madwifi driver is run in your kernel, on the host CPU.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
y. Please don't try to insinuate otherwise.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d, if our users don't need
free firmware when it's in flash, why do they need it when it's on disk?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel modules too.
In many cases, the firmware may be provided by the hardware vendor in
some form, so we can just use the existing media for install purposes.
It's probably not reasonable to expect them to provide Debian installer
modules as well, so in some cases we'd end up with twice as
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do regard licenses with advertising clauses as non-free, don't we?
Nope. There's 4-clause BSD code in main.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe&q
opyright license. Earlier discussion on -project seemed
to suggest that people were more or less happy with the first, and less
happy with the second.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Use of singular they may or may not be a
travesty, but it's not indicative of sexism.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
such as users and other developers
It's fairly common usage in English, and it'll probably even be
considered correct in a few years...
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ation back and forth. Separating the
people doing the job from the people providing updates removes the
direct criticism flow.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ters. Have ftpmasters discussed
> this with this DPL?
This is actually my fault. I should have something by the end of the
day.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t the archive
contains the correct packages in the correct place. While much of this
work is automated, it still requires a large amount of vigilance, as
well as effort to update the tools as the needs of the project change.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
e
> wanted, I have seen quite a few people who asked and got what was either
> /dev/null, or an excellent imitation thereof.
I interviewed one of the ftpmasters in person, and then had what I'd
written checked over by one of the other people in that role and
incorporated his suggestions.
--
any point in the near future, and that makes it
significantly harder to concentrate on working towards that release.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm. I meant to send this to -vote - sorry about that.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * I had recently post a message to debian-project[1] suggesting that we
>> could plan structural changes in Debian, I mea
x27;d also include stuff like (for Sarge):
Debian Installer release
Support for testing proposed updates
Support for testing security builds
and so on. The rc policy defines what needs to be done for general
packages, but doesn't give much idea information about what needs to be
done for t
anything
other than an absolutely final resort.
(m-f-t -project - this isn't a technical discussion)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sebastian Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 15. März 2005 22:37 schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>> However, I /do/ think we need to be more willing to apply
>> social pressure against people whose sole contribution to mailing lists
>> is to disrupt them.
>
&g
for advertising unrelated
products. Now that we're aware of it, failing to take some form of
action could potentially result in us losing the trademark.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd desist type message
to the current holders before resorting to dispute resolution procedures
- it generally looks better if you've tried to settle things quietly
first.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ted
in a specific case, but that's a situation that worries me.
Which part of "Get the people who hold the trademark to enforce it"
sounds unreasonable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d our ducks in a row from a "trademark
> license agreements with existing friendly entities" point of view. You guys
> do whatever you think best.
My recollection is that we're currently blocked on the trademark
committee here. Has there been any progress in drafting a useful
ng about it. Complaining without actually *doing*
anything doesn't help anyone.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Which part of "Get the people who hold the trademark to enforce it"
>> sounds unreasonable?
>
> The bit that has tension with the holder's assertion that
> "The Debian trademark
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Stop the "Project Scud", the cabal is already enough!
Regardless of my feelings about the Scud proposal, it was part of
Branden's platform. He ought to stick to it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSU
people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re because they found
> that under some crack-smoking reading of the License text, it is
> restraining their almighty freedom. Consensus and good will, this is
> what it is about.
Ok, let's just simplify this to the basic issue:
I believe that for software to be free, it must be p
and that
> the answer to our issue can't be "black or white"?
Oh, absolutely. There are all kinds of shades of grey - the problem with
them is that we only have a black and white (free or non-free) way of
dealing with them. At the end of the day, all the shades of grey have to
be divided into those two catagories.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's one other issue, though - I'm not sure if your section 4 covers
GFDL stuff like cover texts. They're not secondary to the main purpose
of the manual, but they are invariant.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there one? Should there be?
(Frankly, I'd be amazed if there's any set of conditions that would
render Ian Murdock's posts unreasonable while allowing the stuff that's
on my Livejournal.)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
able to bring this
discussion up on a public list rather than just the BTS. If people think
the bug is important, we should hold the relase. If not, we shouldn't.
(Personally, I think it's an indescribably stupid thing for KDE to
override the default xscreensaver settings. They exist for a
RC issue for whatever
reason we want to.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Mark, not everyone who criticises Debian is attempting to destroy us.
>
> Basic politeness like using someone's chosen name escapes Matthew
> Garrett. He's also arguing against something he made up.
to do that, then I think we have other issues.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than copyright and licences. slander or
> whatever it is called.
If you're worried, I'd recommend consulting a lawyer.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Some stuff)
I was going to say something here, but then I died of boredom. Sorry
about that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
