On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:21:41PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> AIUI, LSB is a standard to ensure binary compatibility across linux
> distros. This sentence would therfore seem to declare our commitment to
> our users to be interoperable on the binary level -- an issue orthogonal
> to how those bin
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy i
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:21:41PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> AIUI, LSB is a standard to ensure binary compatibility across linux
> distros. This sentence would therfore seem to declare our commitment to
> our users to be interoperable on the binary level -- an issue orthogonal
> to how those bin
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is y
John Goerzen wrote:
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
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a licens
John Goerzen wrote:
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
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> > >
Our existing support for non-f
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:30:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
> >> and so
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:45:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have seen it posited that dropping non-free is inherently a disservice
> to our users, whom we purport to serve. It is the people in the Debian
> Project who are empowered to make this decision, and authority exercised
> to the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> >> migrate. (Brand
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:07:46AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> non-free had
>
> Non-DFSG: 3
>
> and a tool that parsed that displayed
>
> This package is no
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> >
> > I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's
> > proposal, not mine.
> >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:21:16AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
> >> conditions
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
> >> the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> > whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> > because they have no in
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> > >
Our existing support for non-f
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller 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
> >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:28:27AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
> > atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
>
> Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
> secretary, which would be inappropri
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:30:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:20:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:33:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Because, unlike you, I think that Debian is special, and amazing,
> >> and so
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:45:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have seen it posited that dropping non-free is inherently a disservice
> to our users, whom we purport to serve. It is the people in the Debian
> Project who are empowered to make this decision, and authority exercised
> to the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:29:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
> >> atmo
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then th
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hey, if a DFSG free equivalent of tome is available, I'll
> >> migrate. (Brand
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:07:46AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:01:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:32:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> non-free had
>
> Non-DFSG: 3
>
> and a tool that parsed that displayed
>
> This package is no
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> >
> > I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's
> > proposal, not mine.
> >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:21:16AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:07 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >> Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence
> >> conditions
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:30:55 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of support
> >> the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
> > to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
> > "USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> > whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> > because they have no in
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller 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
> >
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:28:27AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
> > atmosphere of conviviality how, Mr. Secretary? :)
>
> Are you implying that I sent that message in as project
> secretary, which would be inappropri
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:29:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> Okay, so you've called me ignorant and dishonest. This promotes an
> >> atmo
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then th
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
> > to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
> > "USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
>
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> > without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> > non-free had
> > Non-DFSG: 3
> What about : N
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
> on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
> d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
[...]
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> >
> > Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
> >
> > > We
> > > support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base",
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> > without confusing uninitiated users. For example, if a package in
> > non-free had
> > Non-DFSG: 3
> What about : N
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more
> on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to
> d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)]
[...]
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> >
> > Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
> >
> > > We
> > > support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base",
[Setting MFT to debian-legal@lists.debian.org, as this discussion is
OT for -vote and -devel. Feel free to override as appropriate.]
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
> licence which will legally be able to stop you from m
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
> licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any piece
> of source code you may have, as long as you don't distribute it.
One of the DFSG issues is
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
>
> > > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
> > > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
>
> > > I don't think it'd be suffic
[Setting MFT to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as this discussion is
OT for -vote and -devel. Feel free to override as appropriate.]
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
> licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
> have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
> mail.
Thanks for your comments!
I do have one immediate question:
> > 5. Programs th
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
> > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
> > I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example,
> > is _very_ broad.
> Yes, I kno
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:58:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's drop does not allow modification, since there is not a single
> licence which will legally be able to stop you from modifying any piece
> of source code you may have, as long as you don't distribute it.
One of the DFSG issues is
Hello Raul,
Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
mail.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian's Social Contract
>
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to c
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
>
> > > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
> > > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
>
> > > I don't think it'd be suffic
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
> have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
> mail.
Thanks for your comments!
I do have one immediate question:
> > 5. Programs th
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> > >> good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like:
> > >> Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5
> > I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example,
> > is _very_ broad.
> Yes, I kno
Hello Raul,
Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
mail.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian's Social Contract
>
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to c
> However, if that's not clear to people, the proper place to address that
> question would be in the DFSG.
That's a very good point, agreed.
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Descr
On 2004-01-13 13:25:52 + Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software? [...]
No, b
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
> documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
> wonder if we need to go one step further. "Software and data that does
> not", or
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
> On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why can't it?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:24:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I thought
> > 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
>
> Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
wonder if we need to go one step fu
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:24:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
> > Why can't it?
> I thought GRs w
> However, if that's not clear to people, the proper place to address that
> question would be in the DFSG.
That's a very good point, agreed.
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Descr
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
>> >debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
>> >***much
On 2004-01-13 13:25:52 + Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software? [...]
No, but equ
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
> documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
> wonder if we need to go one step further. "Software and data that does
> not", or
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:44:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
ack.
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free software`
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
> On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why can't it?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:24:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I thought
> > 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
>
> Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
wonder if we need to go one step fu
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:24:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
> > Why can't it?
> I thought GRs w
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
> >debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
> >***much*** simpler.
>
> As you point out earlier in
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
>> >debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
>> >***much
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
>
> So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archiv
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:44:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
ack.
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free software`
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:39:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 15:34:15 + Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My advice? Keep everything centralized in a
> >debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much,
> >***much*** simpler.
>
> As you point out earlier in
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
>
> So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archiv
On 2004-01-12 01:08:09 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this
was
obvious from what i wrote.
Has he given that dishonest reason and I missed it, or are you
claiming telepathic ability?
please learn basic rules of
On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
Why can't it?
I thought GRs were not able to make technical decisions.
Could you
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not an
insignificant portion of our
On 2004-01-12 01:08:09 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this
was
obvious from what i wrote.
Has he given that dishonest reason and I missed it, or are you
claiming telepathic ability?
please learn basic rules of gramm
On 2004-01-11 18:35:58 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Can the GR state anything useful about its implementation?
Why can't it?
I thought GRs were not able to make technical decisions.
Could you point out whi
On 2004-01-11 07:34:37 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not an
insignificant portion of our devel
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> 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 sug
Op di 13-01-2004, om 00:48 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> 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 sug
84 matches
Mail list logo
