On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:07:46PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 2005-01-02 05:40:01 +0100 KEG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sorry to be a pain but...
As a newcomer to the Debian-Installer, I was facing similar initial
orientation problems when trying out the debian-installer for the
firs
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:53:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Because this is *exactly* the situation you get with invariant sections.
> > Sure, you can add ano
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > An interesting consequence of this proposal is that a Copy-Exact of
> > the GPL License could not longer go into main (as it is essentially
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele writes:
> > I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> > be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> > which states that it onl
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:18:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> > be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> > which state
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > So, I conclude that the Debian license scheme should cater in some way
> > for allowing invariant sections as part of the documentation (but not
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:05:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The GFDL is non-free, even without invariant sections. See:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
> for a summary of a previous time this was discussed to death. :)
Thanks :-)
I feel a little embara
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:36:03AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's becomingly increasingly common for hardware to require firmware to
> be loaded by the device driver on boot, rather than containing it in
> ROM. This is unfortunate, because in most cases the firmware is
> non-free. As a result
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:18:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Please feel free to e-mail me at any time if you have questions or
> wish to make a comment on the usage of the trademark; I will (as
> usual) be participating on -project and -legal.
I am not a Debian Developer, but when I look at t
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:38:38PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> So a naming in the sense of "Debian Commercial Support Association"
> or something along those lines would seem to make it clearer to me
... or just stick to the original "DCC" as "Debian Co
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:59:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:07:07PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:38:38PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > > So a naming in the sense of "Debian Commercial Support Associati
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 05:38:59PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
...
> You should be careful not to give the impression that you are charging a
> license fee though -- you are allowed to charge a fee for the copy of
> the programs, or for the service of installing them, but not for the
> licenses (in
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:33:40AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I must confess I do not see it that way. I think of Debian as
> > distriuting softwware that runs on a platform, this platform consists
> > of hardware, and, perhaps, asso
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:12:20PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > That's the question that I see unanswered. Is the first motivation of
> > banning
> > non-free firmware from main to allow distribution consistent with DFSG
> > or is it because we want to promote free firmware (if realistic) ?
>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:35:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I dislike the "nearest big city" idea, though. I live and
> work in an area with a small city nearby and then four bigger
> cities surrounding me. Most of my work comes from the nearest
> and furthest of those cities. Grouping by English reg
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:30:19AM +1000, Steve Cottom wrote:
...
> I have been told that Linux is free for personal use but businesses must
> pay, I need to comfirm this for this situation.
This statement is incorrect.
Debian consists entirely of "Free" software (Free in the sense of
Freedom, F
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:51:40PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
...
> I lack past experience in media relations. I don't
> really know what to say. I don't think that, "Get a
> clue, dude" would help. Suggestions?
* _start_ the discussion on the positive news about Sarge
and the importance
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:51:40PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> So on the day sarge releases, the big news in the
> free-software world is, "Bruce Perens gets a job?"
Well, Sarge == stable _did_ make it to the news now, but
probably not as we have hoped ... My ZDnet news agent mailed
me thi
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:51:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There was a devel-announce about it as soon as it was discovered.
>
> Additionally, it was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> is visible on http://www.debian.org/CD/releases/ - had anyone
> actually had time to download, burn and sell these
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested
> > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side
> > of the story. Otherwise we
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > My only proposal is to urgently bring the information of which version
> > is the current "stable" version in line on the different pages under
> > http://www.debian.or
21 matches
Mail list logo
