I will second this proposal.
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcom
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's
>> > ap
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:53:16 -0600, Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> [snip] discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this
>> proposal, or barring that, amendments.
> I seconded the proposal.
Seconds need to be signed.
manoj
--
N
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:20:53AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> But, as you might have noticed, the rage on debian-devel did _not_ start
> when the result of the vote was announced. Rather, it was started
> because of the implications Anthony Towns drew of the result of the
> vote. I be
Hale,
Govenment don't want me to sell
UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff
Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY
hacking someone PC!
Disappear in your city
bannedcd2004
http://www.9003hosting.com/cd/
redshank,the lions muzzles.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> > that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
> > most
> making something useful for their users have their choice of either
> (a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b)
> try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves
> the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other
> distribution.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:11:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I second this proposal.
> Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
> dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
>Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> > achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
> > I don't believe th
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fix
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable re
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for del
I second this proposal.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for th
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcom
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable release
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything
beyond "buh". Long time to be stunned, t
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is n
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
> I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area.
now that the Knig
Greetings,
I will second this proposal.
Stephen
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> con
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming st
Steve Langasek wrote:
> [snip]
> discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this proposal, or
> barring that, amendments.
I seconded the proposal.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Please respect the Mail-Followup-To header, and reply to -vote. I will
inform debian-devel and debian-release regularly with updates and new
arguments in a concise and hopefully balanced way ]
Dear developers,
As was seen in another thread[1], the recent change to the Social Contract
also influ
Hi,
I will second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
"Hell, n. - The state of being the richest man in
the world and knowing something exists that you can't buy.
Have a kleenex, Bill."
--Black Parrot (Referring to Bill Gates and Linux)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
hereby
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:11:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I second this proposal.
> Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
> dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
>Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
>
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this proposal.
Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal
dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that
doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fixed?
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Debian Project,
Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards,
membership books and hymn sheets?
Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky?
Please can you work with Jeroen to en
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for delib
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed
> it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one
> is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Well, Ted said that there was a disaster in p
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for
many
this has been more than a simple textual clarification.
Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple
textual clarification.
--
To UNSUB
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a vote.
> It needed more development and discussion. It was proposed on
> debian-devel that the GR be discussed and dissected item by item, but
> that never occurred - instead we went stra
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like "normally"
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable release
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything
beyond "buh". Long time to be stunned, thoug
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.
Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but
all kinds of software. Data is not n
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to
> achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however,
> I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area.
now that the Knig
Greetings,
I will second this proposal.
Stephen
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> con
I second this proposal.
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 20:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming st
Steve Langasek wrote:
> [snip]
> discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this proposal, or
> barring that, amendments.
I seconded the proposal.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
[ Please respect the Mail-Followup-To header, and reply to -vote. I will
inform debian-devel and debian-release regularly with updates and new
arguments in a concise and hopefully balanced way ]
Dear developers,
As was seen in another thread[1], the recent change to the Social Contract
also influ
Hi,
I will second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
"Hell, n. - The state of being the richest man in
the world and knowing something exists that you can't buy.
Have a kleenex, Bill."
--Black Parrot (Referring to Bill Gates and Linux)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35
The Debian Project,
affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
distributes,
but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users,
hereby
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
> Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word "software" in the
old version of the social contract as
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
>> editorial changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times
>> before that the SC/DFSG d
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frankly, I don't see that that definition has the flaws you've claimed
> it has. [For example, if there are equivalent representations and one
> is the preferred form then any of them are the preferred form.]
Well, Ted said that there was a disaster in p
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a vote.
> It needed more development and discussion. It was proposed on
> debian-devel that the GR be discussed and dissected item by item, but
> that never occurred - instead we went stra
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:13:53 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> said:
>> > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's
>> > interpretation of the socia
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking.
Like "normally" is
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
> said:
> > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation
> > of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of
>
> It certainly was
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
> changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
> SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy s
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:21:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Probably because the vote had a misleading title, probably because
> the issues had been previously beaten over and over, and they were
I reject the thesis that the vote had a misleading title. And,
anyway, you
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:47:09 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the
>> > s
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:10:47 -0400, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46
>> people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
>> one mind.
>>
>> I find it amusing
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:57:18 +0200 (CEST), Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's
>> appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to
>> change one of our most important document
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a
> vote.
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
> It needed more development and
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
> Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word "software" in the
old version of the social contract as
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were
>> editorial changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times
>> before that the SC/DFSG d
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:13:53 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's
>> > interpre
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
> have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
> ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
> did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editoria
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation
> > of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of
>
>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
> changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
> SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy s
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:21:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Probably because the vote had a misleading title, probably because
> the issues had been previously beaten over and over, and they were
I reject the thesis that the vote had a misleading title. And,
anyway, you
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:47:09 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the
>> > s
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:10:47 -0400, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least 46
>> people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
>> one mind.
>>
>> I find it amusing
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:57:18 +0200 (CEST), Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's
>> appropriate that less than 20% of the developers is enough to
>> change one of our most important documents
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was stunned because I didn't think this proposal was ready for a
> vote.
You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on
-vote where you expressed your concerns?
> It needed more development and
Anthony Towns dijo [Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000]:
> The Social Contract now states:
> (...)
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-software content such as documentation and fi
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
> have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
> ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
> did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editoria
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
> > 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> > one mind.
> >
> > I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
> >
Anthony Towns dijo [Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000]:
> The Social Contract now states:
> (...)
> As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> non-software content such as documentation and fi
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
> 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> one mind.
>
> I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
> hard it would be to cha
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
> most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with
> as few a
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:10:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
> > 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> > one mind.
> >
> > I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
> >
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
> 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> one mind.
>
> I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
> hard it would be to cha
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
> important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
"Editorial
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > * firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
> > > in all cases
>
> > It's good when this happens.
>
> > > * debian-installer will nee
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
> entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
> assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
> I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
> compiled C code or is alot of it assem
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
> most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with
> as few a
Florian Weimer wrote:
> Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
> > should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
>
> Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
> non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Reme
Hey honey! :)Death was afraid of him because he had the heart of a lion.Worldly fame is but a breath of wind that blows now this way, and now that, and changes name as it changes direction.
Debian, need cheap super-VIA?
http://singkamas.gfd-online.com/cia/?dcent flabbiest
Two things control men'
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, "So you can make
> > effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system
> > that is not driven by the
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our most
> important documents.
Especially considering that it was intended to be only a matter of several
"Editorial
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040426 12:10]:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > * firmware will need to be split out of the kernel into userspace
> > > in all cases
>
> > It's good when this happens.
>
> > > * debian-installer will nee
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
> entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
> assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
> I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
> compiled C code or is alot of it assem
Florian Weimer wrote:
> Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You should not be. Debian is about freedom, so we
> > should struggle to not distribute non-free items.
>
> Debian is the distribution that distributes the largest chunk of
> non-free software. Please keep this in mind.
Reme
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:31:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm stunned that this GR passed. I was surprised when the secretary
> > called for votes because the proposal wasn't anything close to ready
> > for
Get daily updated m'ortgage rat'es!
Buy a new h`ome with $0 down, get a low ra'te with a
3-hour pre-ap`proval,
available in all 50 states. We guara`ntee to beat any
1en'der's price
The F.IXED ra'te available from 1.5% to
3%
Get it N0W!
ckgncrs xjdvjhcih dpxdlsae mxgwo ejrplxag, xzgrsjegx brf
Hey honey! :)Death was afraid of him because he had the heart of a lion.Worldly fame is but a breath of wind that blows now this way, and now that, and changes name as it changes direction.
Debian, need cheap super-VIA?
http://singkamas.gfd-online.com/cia/?dcent flabbiest
Two things control men'
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sad but this is true real life story.
People did not vote for titles, they voted for the change.
> I second re-vote. (If this is allowed.)
No. It's not. You can propose another change, which must win by
3:1.
> I still feel like a bad looser by sta
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, "So you can make
> > effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system
> > that is not driven by the
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler
> (metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free. The source
> code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler.
As it happens, the compiler is free.
But th
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If we take "program" to mean "a sequence of instructions that a computer
> > > can interpret and execute", then it's reasonable to consider a font file
> > > as instructions on how to render characters in tha
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:20:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Which case are we speaking of, exactly?
>
> Pick one.
In the case of a font generated from a METAFONT program, without
modification of the bitmaps, the source is the complete METAF
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're saying that for the case where the font was generated by hand
> using a hex editor, the bitmap file itself is the source code. [And,
> perhaps not by chance, it was "the preferred form for making changes".]
Naw, because there are many equivalen
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All of which is completely irrelevant to the question of "what
> definition(s) are we using for 'source code'".
We aren't using any particular single definition of "source code". We
have never in the past, and we aren't now. Nothing has changed.
"Source
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
