On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a
> package name registry, for example.
Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that
Raul> even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins
Raul> on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider
Raul> updating policy to incorpo
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a
> package name registry, for example.
Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that
Raul> even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins
Raul> on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider
Raul> updating policy to incorpo
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
>> non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
>
> Where is this good, wh
Raul Miller wrote:
there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
non-free packages are making.
And what is this mistake?
Owners
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:05:37PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
> can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
> double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
> Raul.
Yes, t
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping
non-free wil
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
>> non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
>
> Where is this good, wh
Raul Miller wrote:
there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
non-free packages are making.
And what is this mistake?
Owners of
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, t
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> You misunderstood.
> Creating, using, distributing non-free does not make you immideately
> non-ethical. It does not make you non-ethical later. It just compel you
> to act non-ethical later, not always and not necesserelly.
>
> One who m
Raul Miller wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth.
Good car care prevents water and air pollution. That
doesn't that there will be no water and air pollution
[not even from that car].
Etc.
Creating and distr
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, those who downloaded it
will no
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:05:37PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
> can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
> double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
> Raul.
Yes, t
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers
who want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers
who think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example
because of the work they contribute to non-free.
I feel somewhat insult
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping
non-free will br
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
>>> If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify
>>> this program to help his friend to adapt it for his
>>> needs. Developer will not be able to distribute modifications to
>>> others who also need su
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, those
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No it wouldn't. Nothing
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
>>> I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
>>> distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three
>>> actions do not contradict any ethical rule.
>>> If you still think that erasing
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> You misunderstood.
> Creating, using, distributing non-free does not make you immideately
> non-ethical. It does not make you non-ethical later. It just compel you
> to act non-ethical later, not always and not necesserelly.
>
> One who m
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
Raul.
I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in "X" if you prefer:
If I
Raul Miller wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth.
Good car care prevents water and air pollution. That
doesn't that there will be no water and air pollution
[not even from that car].
Etc.
Creating and distributin
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, those who downloaded it
will not lo
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers
who want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers
who think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example
because of the work they contribute to non-free.
I feel somewhat insulted t
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
>>> If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify
>>> this program to help his friend to adapt it for his
>>> needs. Developer will not be able to distribute modifications to
>>> others who also need su
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No it wouldn't. Nothing would
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
>>> I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
>>> distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three
>>> actions do not contradict any ethical rule.
>>> If you still think that erasing
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I
can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the
double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is
Raul.
I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in "X" if you prefer:
If I d
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay.
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That
Raul Miller wrote:
As an obvious example, consider any important package as X. Yeah, it's
fine for him as an individual to not distribute it, but we're talking
about Debian.
We are talking about Debian. For Debian is O.K. not to distribute
package X, if Debian doesn't have it on his ftp serve
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > > Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
> > > developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
> > > be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining t
Sven Luther wrote:
If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify this
program to help his friend to adapt it for his needs. Developer will not
be able to distribute modifications to others who also need such an
improvenment. This contradicts human ethics, because help is
Raul Miller wrote:
As an obvious example, consider any important package as X. Yeah, it's
fine for him as an individual to not distribute it, but we're talking
about Debian.
We are talking about Debian. For Debian is O.K. not to distribute
package X, if Debian doesn't have it on his ftp servers.
Sven Luther wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers who
want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers who
think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example because of
the work they contribute to non-free.
Ok.
I maintain he
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > > Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
> > > developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
> > > be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining t
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Yes:
> >
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
>
> No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a devel
Sven Luther wrote:
If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify this
program to help his friend to adapt it for his needs. Developer will not
be able to distribute modifications to others who also need such an
improvenment. This contradicts human ethics, because help is e
Sven Luther wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers who
want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers who
think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example because of
the work they contribute to non-free.
Ok.
I maintain he un
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Yes:
> >
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
>
> No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a devel
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
> > developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
> > be ethical to rejec
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
> Yes:
>
> Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
> Perhaps some of this value is pur
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:57:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >>I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
> >>distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three actions
> >>do not contradict any ethical rule.
> >>If you sti
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:43:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
> >
> >You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
> >with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
> > developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
> > be ethical to rejec
Raul Miller wrote:
I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three actions
do not contradict any ethical rule.
If you still think that erasing something from my hard drive (free or
non-free) is not ethical, pl
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote:
> Yes:
>
> Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
> non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
> Perhaps some of this value is pur
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:57:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >>I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
> >>distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three actions
> >>do not contradict any ethical rule.
> >>If you sti
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:43:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
> >
> >You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
> >with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's
Raul Miller wrote:
I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three actions
do not contradict any ethical rule.
If you still think that erasing something from my hard drive (free or
non-free) is not ethical, ple
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking
> > about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution
> > of upstream".
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause)
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 12:29:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >>I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
> >>distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
> >>After this I erased the program from my hard drive
On 2004-01-18 10:31:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
> > any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:07:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> That is not true.
Why? Because people aren't follow
Raul Miller wrote:
So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking
about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution
of upstream".
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Wi
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking
> > about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution
> > of upstream".
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause)
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 12:29:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >>I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
> >>distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
> >>After this I erased the program from my hard drive
On 2004-01-18 10:31:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
> > any
> > non-free packages (such as GFDL).
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:07:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> That is not true.
Why? Because people aren't follow
Raul Miller wrote:
So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking
about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution
of upstream".
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Window
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:04:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> > deciding what happens in Debian.
> No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
> falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte
Raul Miller wrote:
I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
After this I erased the program from my hard drive. I dropped it. After
I dropped my copy the third mate Usama got the copy from Bi
On 2004-01-18 10:31:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
That is not true.
That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
our users in the packages dist
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
> > distribution"?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:01:22AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Example seems to work better. Example:
>
> I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
On 2004-01-17 21:30:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
> > distribution"?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:58:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Raul, in an email on 5 January, I explained that to prevent something
> is usually
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:04:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Sure they can -- General Resolutions are the mechanism of last resort for
> > deciding what happens in Debian.
> No. That is divided between GRs and the technical committee, and this
> falls squarely under the purview of tech-ctte
Raul Miller wrote:
I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
After this I erased the program from my hard drive. I dropped it. After
I dropped my copy the third mate Usama got the copy from Bin
On 2004-01-18 10:31:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing
any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
That is not true.
That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
our users in the packages distribut
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
> > distribution"?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:01:22AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Example seems to work better. Example:
>
> I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
On 2004-01-17 21:30:45 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its
> > distribution"?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:58:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Raul, in an email on 5 January, I explained that to prevent something
> is usually
74 matches
Mail list logo
