-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted this morning.
I've fixed several errors in part five.
Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 16th. There's a
non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
The rationale for this proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted this morning.
I've fixed several errors in part five.
Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 16th. There's a
non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
The rationale for this proposal
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'd like to call for seconds on this proposal, [especially from Sven
> and Hamish, if this new one meets your requirements].
I certainly support this in principal and will await your final version
before signing a second. Also I must p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > | support interoperability s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'd like to call for seconds on this proposal, [especially from Sven
> and Hamish, if this new one meets your requirements].
I certainly support this in principal and will await your final version
before signing a second. Also I must p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > | support interoperability s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
> > this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
>
> I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done,
> decide how to proc
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt wh
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote:
I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal?
I believe that is the plan.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but you are wrong.
> >
> > most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even
> > (almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict
> > definition.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
> > this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
>
> I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done,
> decide how to proc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
>
> That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
> purposes, [...]
thanksyeah, i thought it was a good idea too. it tells (without any
detail) exactly why the package is in non-fre
> > But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both
> > the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes.
> > He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the
> > one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other
> > proposa
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which wo
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:21:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> We could end up with rather a lot of options though;
>
> Editorial changes;
> Editorial changes + Andrew's remove non-free proposal
> Andrew's remove non-free proposal only
> Editorial changes + Raul's clarify non-free proposal
> Ra
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote:
I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal?
I believe that is the plan.
If s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:29:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> > proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> > put them both on the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> | will acce
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but you are wrong.
> >
> > most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even
> > (almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict
> > definition.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
>
> That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other
> purposes, [...]
thanksyeah, i thought it was a good idea too. it tells (without any
detail) exactly why the package is in non-fre
> > But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both
> > the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes.
> > He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the
> > one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other
> > proposa
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:21:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> We could end up with rather a lot of options though;
>
> Editorial changes;
> Editorial changes + Andrew's remove non-free proposal
> Andrew's remove non-free proposal only
> Editorial changes + Raul's clarify non-free proposal
> Ra
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:29AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
> http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
>
> Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
> I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:29:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> > proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> > put them both on the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I second this proposal.
Thanks.
But, um... since I got the name of LSB wrong, I'm going to have to
re-issue the proposal again.
I think, when I re-issue it tonight, I'll ask for a delay on seconding,
just in case there's anything els
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> | will acce
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > > (i.e. what Andrew j
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's a non-issue, as near as I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
|I propose the following resolution:
|
|We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
|by the recent constitutional amendment. The first replacement document
|will be the social contract below, and the second replacement docum
> > What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
>
> That would be misleading I think.
>
> Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
>
>
> Michael
I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the
copyright in a separate file, for two reasons
1) ease of ma
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
>
> That's a non-issue, as near as I can
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> > > was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> > > get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
> > > pr
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:24:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> > was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> > get anything else i
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:29AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
> http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
>
> Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
> I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and
> Andrew thinks it's al
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I second this proposal.
Thanks.
But, um... since I got the name of LSB wrong, I'm going to have to
re-issue the proposal again.
I think, when I re-issue it tonight, I'll ask for a delay on seconding,
just in case there's anything els
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
> more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
> a bad idea.
Well, I let you vote-gurus hash that out.
I actually (mis)read you that you
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> argued heavily fo
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > > (i.e. what Andrew j
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's a non-issue, as near as I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
|I propose the following resolution:
|
|We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
|by the recent constitutional amendment. The first replacement document
|will be the social contract below, and the second replacement docum
> > What about copyright.Debian, or copyright.DFSG ?
>
> That would be misleading I think.
>
> Why not add it to the copyright filer proper?
>
>
> Michael
I think it would be better to keep what is essentially a Debian opinion on the
copyright in a separate file, for two reasons
1) ease of ma
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
>
> That's a non-issue, as near as I can
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:43:55PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of software
> > that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> >
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> > > was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> > > get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
> > > pr
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
> one which is not yet in the mailing list archives,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:24:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> > was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> > get anything else i
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:23:12PM +0100]:
> > I would advocate making this more prominent - This proposal is quite
> > good, and it would add expresiveness to tools such as vrms... But I
> > would like to see something like
> > /usr/share/doc/package/why_is_nonfree, stating the re
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and
> Andrew thinks it's al
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
> > > to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
> > > tha
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:12:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
> more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
> a bad idea.
Well, I let you vote-gurus hash that out.
I actually (mis)read you that you
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> argued heavily fo
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:43:55PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of software
> > that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> >
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
> one which is not yet in the mailing list archives,
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:23:12PM +0100]:
> > I would advocate making this more prominent - This proposal is quite
> > good, and it would add expresiveness to tools such as vrms... But I
> > would like to see something like
> > /usr/share/doc/package/why_is_nonfree, stating the re
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
That's a non-issue, as near as I can tell.
If there's some problem you're trying to solve, please specify
I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Desc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:17:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I am *not* soliciting seconds at this time. Just bug fixes.
In that case, you might want to make explicit that changes to the social
contract which happen after some point in time [perhaps use y2000, or
the passing of the amended c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version which combines this with your other proposal, I'll be
> happy to update mine, yet again, with the parts I like.
I will and have been accepting sugg
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > i DID NOT exhaustively analyse each license. i looked quickly at each one
> > > to try to find out why it had been classified as non-free. in some cases,
> > > tha
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:07AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
> > > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against
> > > non-free
> > > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the
> > > copyrigh
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:57:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> > snipped>
> >
> > Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
> >
> > This is so much more
Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
> > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against non-free
> > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the copyright
> > file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
>
> good idea. pe
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> > the two.
>
> Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would
> mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:31:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > > be amended. It might not
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
> > sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system
> > back then.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, he's talking several
> On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Debian's Social Contract with its Users
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:45:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
> software community; see 4.
I agree.
In fact, I've removed "wi
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
That's a non-issue, as near as I can tell.
If there's some problem you're trying to solve, please specify
I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Desc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:17:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I am *not* soliciting seconds at this time. Just bug fixes.
In that case, you might want to make explicit that changes to the social
contract which happen after some point in time [perhaps use y2000, or
the passing of the amended c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version which combines this with your other proposal, I'll be
> happy to update mine, yet again, with the parts I like.
I will and have been accepting sugg
http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy, as it's linked to from
http://popcon.alioth.debian.org/ I would guess that it'
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:07AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
> > > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against non-free
> > > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the copyright
> > > file w
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:57:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:26:19AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
> > snipped>
> >
> > Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
> >
> > This is so much more
Craig Sanders dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100]:
> > Maybe as a first measure, we could mass-file wishlist bugs against non-free
> > packages, asking the maintainer to put a small paragraph into the copyright
> > file with an explanation as to why this is in non-free?
>
> good idea. pe
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> > the two.
>
> Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would
> mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:31:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > I anticipate that if this resolution passes, people will formulate
> > > > timetables and transition plans as appropriate;
> > > If it passes, non-free will be dropped, and the social contract will
> > > be amended. It might not
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
> > sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system
> > back then.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, he's talking several
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split, updating
> On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Debian's Social Contract with its Users
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:45:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
> software community; see 4.
I agree.
In fact, I've removed "wi
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian's Social Contract with its Users
Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
software community; see 4.
http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/popcon/ was meant to replace
http://people.debian.org/~apenwarr/popcon/
Avery Pennarun's page (apenwarr) has been reportedly broken in the past.
I'm unsure as to it's current accuracy, as it's linked to from
http://popcon.alioth.debian.org/ I would guess that it'
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made
sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Even with the split, updating the s
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian's Social Contract with its Users
Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
software community; see 4.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > What's more, if there really are as many people that find
> >non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
> >to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long ti
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 03:13:56PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > > section; there will b
The biggest reason for my most recent proposal is to make the social
contract say what it is that we've been doing in the context of non-free.
However, I've addressed a number of more minor problems [for example,
removing references to specific technologies, such as "GNU/Linux",
"FTP" and "CDs", a
Comments on my most recent proposal.
The proposal consists of four kinds of changes:
[A] Making the social contract more generic than Linux. This means
changing the meta-title (the first line of the document) from "Debian
GNU/Linux Social Contract" to "Debian's Social Contract", and
making a si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but which is quoted at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/de
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
> provide anything e
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > What's more, if there really are as many people that find
> >non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
> >to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long ti
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 03:13:56PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > > section; there will b
The biggest reason for my most recent proposal is to make the social
contract say what it is that we've been doing in the context of non-free.
However, I've addressed a number of more minor problems [for example,
removing references to specific technologies, such as "GNU/Linux",
"FTP" and "CDs", a
Comments on my most recent proposal.
The proposal consists of four kinds of changes:
[A] Making the social contract more generic than Linux. This means
changing the meta-title (the first line of the document) from "Debian
GNU/Linux Social Contract" to "Debian's Social Contract", and
making a si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but which is quoted at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/de
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that the last video card to have free 3D support
> was the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200, and that we are pretty unlikely to
> get anything else in the near future. And both ATI and Nvidia don't
> provide anything e
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian
nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in
the world!
I am not sure that you completely understand th
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> > > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> > > subject) apa
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:52:54AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
> > +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the
> > upstream
> > +a
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > > > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > > > alternati
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
