This is an excerpt of my "what kind of change is this" that I included
with each of my drafts. In some cases, the changes were trivial (cleaning
up grammar), so I did not describe them in any detail. I believe I've
indicated all substantial changes with more explicit description.
http://lists.
This is a description of the changes my proposal introduces when
compared to the proposal from Andrew Suffield which I'm amending.
The proposal Andrew Suffield has introduced, to eliminate
section 5 of the social contract, has two major aspects:
[1] It indicates that we remove a number of packag
This is a description of the changes my proposal would introduce
to the current social contract.
Comparison of my proposal with the current social contract:
Section 1.
Title -- changed capitalization to correspond with
Andrew Suffield's proposed editorial changes
First sentence --
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> >>talking about.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> >>talking about.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed
I second this proposal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed
I second this proposal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
> > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
> > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
> > > a w
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
> > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
> > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
> > > a w
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve huma
I second this proposal.
Hamish
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I su
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.
Thanks.
You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can eit
Sven Luther wrote:
I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human int
I second this proposal.
Hamish
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I su
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.
Thanks.
You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either n
Sven Luther wrote:
I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue. More generally, I'm
> > addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide
> > variety of reasons" class of issues.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue. More generally, I'm
> > addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide
> > variety of reasons" class of issues.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray
On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue. More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide
variety
of reasons" class of issues.
I do not think that you can address these two issues in
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
c
On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue. More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide
variety
of reasons" class of issues.
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a co
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
O
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?
--
Raul
--
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
conse
On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
Then your
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
O
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
On
On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
Then your amend
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
>
> I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
So why do
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debi
On 2004-01-21 14:59:29 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he
seems
to intend a separate ballot for gra
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
On
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
>
> I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
So why do
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debi
On 2004-01-21 14:59:29 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he
seems
to intend a separate ballot for gramma
I've been thinking quite a bit about Andrew Suffield's statement
of the purpose of this upcoming ballot.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00601.html
In particular, I've been thinking about what each of the major options on
that ballot could mean, if it should win th
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
> more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
> produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
> things with less effo
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For
example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is
substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the
same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of pac
-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 document
wi
I've been thinking quite a bit about Andrew Suffield's statement
of the purpose of this upcoming ballot.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00601.html
In particular, I've been thinking about what each of the major options on
that ballot could mean, if it should win th
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:11:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
>
> Many people have contributed to the wording o
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
> more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
> produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
> things with less effo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
is not in reply to any other post.]
This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
Many peo
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> 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
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For
example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is
substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the
same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of pack
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:45:57AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
> I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
> I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with
> calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions
> unethi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:19:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
>
> Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
He is accusing me to be non-ethical. Indirectly though but
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
> >>regards
> >>it as unethica
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:30:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
> >maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
> >while this is patently false. This
-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 document
wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal. I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the curr
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:11:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
>
> Many people have contributed to the wording o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
is not in reply to any other post.]
This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
Many peo
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:45:57AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
> I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
> I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with
> calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions
> unethi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:19:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
>
> Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
He is accusing me to be non-ethical. Indirectly though but
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
> >>regards
> >>it as unethica
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:30:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
> >maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
> >while this is patently false. This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal. I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the curr
Von: Fr. Serena Jones
Bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen
Ich bin die obengenannte Person aus Kuwait.Ich bin mit Dr. Harry Jones, der
neun Jahre lang für die Kuwaitsche Botschaft gearbeitet hatte, bevor er in 2002
verstarb, verheiratet.
Wir waren elf Jahre verheiratet, ohne
Von: Fr. Serena Jones
Bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen
Ich bin die obengenannte Person aus Kuwait.Ich bin mit Dr. Harry Jones, der neun Jahre
lang für die Kuwaitsche Botschaft gearbeitet hatte, bevor er in 2002 verstarb,
verheiratet.
Wir waren elf Jahre verheiratet, ohne
71 matches
Mail list logo
