On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 02:14:40PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Umm this is very confusing. Are we expected to cast votes for
> both the amendment and the general resolution at the same time?
Yes. The ballot will look like:
[ ] Remove non-free
[ ] Keep non-free
[
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
> case, they are beginning to "see the light".
I'm very glad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:46:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:29:12 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
> Are you basing that on anything you put on
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:58:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> First you claim that they cannot produce free software drivers (free
> software is what we require, more than just open source) and then you
> claim that they will produce free software drivers. Clearly, they can
> produce devices with fr
On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
Are you basing that on anything you put on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 as "The actual text of the
amendment"?
[...]
It did seem
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
"go". In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:14:40 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>>
>> General Resolution: Status of the non-free section Text: The actual
>> text of the GR is:
>>
>> The next release of Debian will not be ac
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rationale for the amendment is also available. This amedment
>> only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only
[Please excuse the top post/reply, I just recently subscribed to -vote]
I agree in principal that not having non-free software is the best-case
scenario, but that time is clearly not now. The Nvidia drivers provide
a most important example.
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vend
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:58:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> First you claim that they cannot produce free software drivers (free
> software is what we require, more than just open source) and then you
> claim that they will produce free software drivers. Clearly, they can
> produce devices with fr
On 2004-02-25 21:02:20 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals.
Are you basing that on anything you put on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 as "The actual text of the
amendment"?
[...]
It did seem clear to me t
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
"go". In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not o
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
> General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
> Text: The actual text of the GR is:
>
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied
> by a n
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:14:40 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>>
>> General Resolution: Status of the non-free section Text: The actual
>> text of the GR is:
>>
>> The next release of Debian will not be ac
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rationale for the amendment is also available. This amedment
>> only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040225 13:55]:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew th
[Please excuse the top post/reply, I just recently subscribed to -vote]
I agree in principal that not having non-free software is the best-case
scenario, but that time is clearly not now. The Nvidia drivers provide
a most important example.
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vend
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include "using development tools provided by the
project").
I think
Hej Josip
Ako si od Katice i Nikole Katinic puno pozdrava od
Mande iz Svedske
JAVI SE
> > My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
> > mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
> it as a reply to my comment about t
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment abo
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
> General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
> Text: The actual text of the GR is:
>
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied
> by a n
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:25, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Does Scott second both??
>
Yes. Seconding != Voting. I would like to see this issue voted upon,
and seconded what I felt were the two most reasonable options. I'll
vote for one of them.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had stran
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040225 13:55]:
> On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
> >resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
> As written, your proposed amendment does no such
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include "using development tools provided by the
project").
I think tha
Hej Josip
Ako si od Katice i Nikole Katinic puno pozdrava od
Mande iz Svedske
JAVI SE
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already
> > My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
> > mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
> it as a reply to my comment about t
whats my prize?
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment about t
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:25, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Does Scott second both??
>
Yes. Seconding != Voting. I would like to see this issue voted upon,
and seconded what I felt were the two most reasonable options. I'll
vote for one of them.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had stran
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
> >list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
> >But then, if you can
whats my prize?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a
> > non-free
> > section; there will be no more stable releases of the
> > non-free
> > section. Th
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
> >> unambiguous
> >> in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating
> >> system".
> > But forgetting what
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
> >list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
> >But then, if you can
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a
> non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of softwa
On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew that
an amendment should say if it deletes, because your
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>Seconds: 1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a
> non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:58:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
> >This
> >amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
> or that the amended GR would only n
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > section. The Debian p
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
>
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already not "DFSG-
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
> >> unambiguous
> >> in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating
> >> system".
> > But forgetting what
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not wor
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you measure "increased demand"?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that "In the future,
we
On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
This
amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
or that the amende
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of software t
On 2004-02-25 11:42:51 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Eh? My proposed resolution replaces the entirety of Andrew's proposed
resolution. What the hell are you talking about?
As written, your proposed amendment does no such thing. You knew that
an amendment should say if it deletes
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>Seconds: 1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> s
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:58:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
> >This
> >amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
> or that the amended GR would only n
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
>
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already not "DFSG-
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not worth
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you measure "increased demand"?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that "In the future,
we can p
This file, which was attached to the message titled "General Resolution:
Handling of the non-free section" by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and was quarantined on
2/24/2004 9:02 PM, has been released.
NOTE: If AutoProtect is enabled, then this restored attachment will be
rescanned during the restore. I
On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 + Debian Project secretary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Rationale for the amendment is also available.
This
amedment only requires a simple majority to pass.
Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the original,
or that the amended G
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
This file, which was attached to the message titled "General Resolution: Handling of
the non-free section" by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and was quarantined on 2/24/2004 9:02 PM,
has been released.
NOTE: If AutoProtect is enabled, then this restored attachment will be rescanned
during the restore. I
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:42PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and
I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
Uh,
62 matches
Mail list logo
