On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Nitpick: on-line, not online
Hmm... according to Google, "online" is more than 20 times more common
than "on-line". Even ispell is happy with both (at least with the
iamerican spelling dictionary).
I don't think there's any good r
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
>1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
>
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording differ
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Nitpick: on-line, not online
Hmm... according to Google, "online" is more than 20 times more common
than "on-line". Even ispell is happy with both (at least with the
iamerican spelling dictionary).
I don't think there's any good r
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
>1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
>
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording differ
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:26:37PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >>That is
> >>why my very first question was "Is distributing non-free compatible with
> >>Debian developer ethics?".
> >By definition it is. Debian developer ethics *require* the distribution
> >of non-free software. Defining
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:26:37PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >>That is
> >>why my very first question was "Is distributing non-free compatible with
> >>Debian developer ethics?".
> >By definition it is. Debian developer ethics *require* the distribution
> >of non-free software. Defining
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations
Raul Miller wrote:
I already presented some examples (using GFDL). You indicated you didn't
want to talk about them. I've presented other examples, as well.
Note, I'm talking about "packages we distribute which do not satisfy
all of our guidelines" when I say "non-free". I don't really know
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations,
Raul Miller wrote:
I already presented some examples (using GFDL). You indicated you didn't
want to talk about them. I've presented other examples, as well.
Note, I'm talking about "packages we distribute which do not satisfy
all of our guidelines" when I say "non-free". I don't really know wha
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
> off until at least tomorrow.
> This comparison is based on
> Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andrew Suffield's GR,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:54:09PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> But not very well. ;-) Consider wrapping down to 76 or even 70
> instead of 80 characters.
Thanks for the summary, in any case. It was a useful comparison.
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
> --
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
> off until at least tomorrow.
> This comparison is based on
> Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andrew Suffield's GR,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines.
>
>
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> --
> |--
But not very w
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:54:09PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> But not very well. ;-) Consider wrapping down to 76 or even 70
> instead of 80 characters.
Thanks for the summary, in any case. It was a useful comparison.
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
> --
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations, but we have no free resou
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragra
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines.
>
>
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> --
> |--
But not very w
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations, but we have no free resour
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
> >>will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
> >>working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
Raul Miller w
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and t
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
> will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
> working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
I already presented
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
> >>will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
> >>working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
Raul Miller w
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
lic
Raul Miller wrote:
The mistake I'm talking about is not one we've made, but one we're
contemplating making. I'm talking about forbidding the distribution,
within debian, of software which satisfies some but not all of our
guidelines.
My idea is to present arguments which will convince Debian
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
>
> They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
> fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
> license. This is n
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
I alre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and t
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian
> will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How
> working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
I already presented
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
>
>
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
license.
Raul Miller wrote:
The mistake I'm talking about is not one we've made, but one we're
contemplating making. I'm talking about forbidding the distribution,
within debian, of software which satisfies some but not all of our
guidelines.
My idea is to present arguments which will convince Debian deve
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
>
> They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to
> fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
> license. This is n
Raul Miller wrote:
> > The mistake is acting to preclude some free distribution, support and
> > use of software.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:08AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> How do they preclude free distribution? By distributing non-free? Or by
> not distributing free instead of non-fr
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to fix
the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
license. This is not because they are busy, but because they choose to
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:31:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
> > our users in the packages distributed by debian.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:59:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I believe that there is some value to at lea
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
>
>
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:31:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
> our users in the packages distributed by debian.
I believe that there is some value to at least some of our users in MS
Windows. I don't think that means we should
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
original intent.
-8<-
Par
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
>>> And if some of our user found helpful to have
>>> a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should.
>
> Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the
> free software, shouldn't they?
Raul Miller wrote:
> > The mistake is acting to preclude some free distribution, support and
> > use of software.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:08AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> How do they preclude free distribution? By distributing non-free? Or by
> not distributing free instead of non-fr
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want.
They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to fix
the bug in the source of the program with the described non-free
license. This is not because they are busy, but because they choose to
agre
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:31:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
> > our users in the packages distributed by debian.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:59:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I believe that there is some value to at lea
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:31:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> That, and I [perhaps arrogantly] believe that there is some value to
> our users in the packages distributed by debian.
I believe that there is some value to at least some of our users in MS
Windows. I don't think that means we should
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
original intent.
-8<-
Par
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
>>> And if some of our user found helpful to have
>>> a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should.
>
> Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the
> free software, shouldn't they?
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
And if some of our user found helpful to have
a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should.
Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the free
software, shouldn't they?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
ethics in th
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
> software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
> enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
> ethics in the most effective
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
And if some of our user found helpful to have
a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should.
Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the free
software, shouldn't they?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
ethics in the m
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:51AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
I think that should be a per-developer decision, not something for the
social contract.
There is a problem with changing Social Contract in the way which will
hurt any developer wh
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free
> software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is
> enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
> ethics in the most effective
Raul Miller wrote:
The mistake is acting to preclude some free distribution, support and
use of software.
How do they preclude free distribution? By distributing non-free? Or by
not distributing free instead of non-free?
I think you're talking about fairness, not ethics. You seem more
co
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:51AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
I think that should be a per-developer decision, not something for the
social contract.
There is a problem with changing Social Contract in the way which will
hurt any developer which al
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which
contradicts ethics. This situation contradicts ethics regardless of
the solution which I propose. You probably can find better solution,
but I do not see it.
But it doesn't change the fact that you can't giv
Raul Miller wrote:
The mistake is acting to preclude some free distribution, support and
use of software.
How do they preclude free distribution? By distributing non-free? Or by
not distributing free instead of non-free?
I think you're talking about fairness, not ethics. You seem more
concerne
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>
>> Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change
>> only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for
>> him to find it.
>
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing non-free often lead to the described sit
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
(because we were no longer able).
we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
G
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which
contradicts ethics. This situation contradicts ethics regardless of
the solution which I propose. You probably can find better solution,
but I do not see it.
But it doesn't change the fact that you can't give hi
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>
>> Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change
>> only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for
>> him to find it.
>
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing non-free often lead to the described sit
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
(because we were no longer able).
we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
GFDL lik
66 matches
Mail list logo
