Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are mistaken. It also applies if a package needs a piece of software
> which isn't distributable by Debian, not even in non-free (for a
> concrete example, see the java packages that can't be compiled by free
> compilers)
Ah, thanks for the correc
I second this proposal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
I second this proposal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second this proposal.
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
> up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
> believe any substantive changes have been made.]
>
>
Chad Walstrom dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:17:46PM -0500]:
> [This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
> debian-vote. I've substituted "Published" with "Ratified" and removed
> "versions".]
>
> I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
>
> § 5.1.4. Ratified versi
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500, Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list
>> of foundation documents the document attached in this proposal,
>> titled "Trans
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:16:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As Raul Miller stated:
I must admit that I'm somewhat embarassed to see my name in this context.
Flattered, but... I don't feel comfortable having my name "enshrined"
in a foundati
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solutions
> that can be succinctly implemented.
What about actually saying in the constitution what the meaning of the
Social Contract is? Also, DFSG is according to the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:17:40PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> The wordy proposal, while wordy, covers everything - and it also
> provides rationale and context for the user.
Providing context for the user is not the job of FD's or the
Constitution, it is the job of supplementary documentation,
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
> > foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
> > "Tran
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted "Published" with "Ratified" and removed
"versions".]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of Foundation Documents shall be formally
associated to spe
I second this proposed option for GR 2004_04
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:57:45 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
> up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
> believe any substa
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
> foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
> "Transition Guide"
I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solut
"Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote:
> There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
> implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
> version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
>
> Hi,
>
> In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
>
Chad Walstrom dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:17:46PM -0500]:
> [This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
> debian-vote. I've substituted "Published" with "Ratified" and removed
> "versions".]
>
> I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
>
> § 5.1.4. Ratified versi
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500, Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list
>> of foundation documents the document attached in this proposal,
>> titled "Trans
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:17:46PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
>
> § 5.1.4. Ratified versions of Foundation Documents shall be formally
>associated to specific releases of the Debian system.
This seems to me to be incomplete.
Wh
Hi,
I second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here
I second this, hoping it will bring us all back to work, away from the
flamefest.
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500]:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
> version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
>
> Hi,
>
> In order
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:16:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As Raul Miller stated:
I must admit that I'm somewhat embarassed to see my name in this context.
Flattered, but... I don't feel comfortable having my name "enshrined"
in a foundati
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the transit
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solutions
> that can be succinctly implemented.
What about actually saying in the constitution what the meaning of the
Social Contract is? Also, DFSG is according to the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:17:40PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> The wordy proposal, while wordy, covers everything - and it also
> provides rationale and context for the user.
Providing context for the user is not the job of FD's or the
Constitution, it is the job of supplementary documentation,
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:55:41 -0500
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
> > foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
> > "Tran
Hi,
[This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
believe any substantive changes have been made.]
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation
[This is a counter proposal to Manoj's I originally posted on
debian-vote. I've substituted "Published" with "Ratified" and removed
"versions".]
I propose to add the following to the Constitution:
§ 5.1.4. Ratified versions of Foundation Documents shall be formally
associated to spe
I second this proposed option for GR 2004_04
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:57:45 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening
> up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not
> believe any substa
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of
> foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled
> "Transition Guide"
I'm also not comfortable with adding verbose documentation for solut
"Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote:
> There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
> implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
> version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
>
> Hi,
>
> In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
>
Hi,
I second this proposal.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here
I second this, hoping it will bring us all back to work, away from the
flamefest.
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:57:33PM -0500]:
> [MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
> version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
>
> Hi,
>
> In order
Title: Turnkey
surreal yeats cinematic pornographer assuage citrate conscious rubric nazism zippy carlyle adulthood coherent bony odyssey deborah mallard lesotho showroom daydream anastigmatic baltic brace cowgirl captivate classmate conferred peridotite reconcile proclaim dreyfuss was brainchil
[MY new CVS Emacs seems to have munged th headers, here is a new
version, with a few typographical errors fixed]
Hi,
In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003,
I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
guidance and explanation for the transit
Fraternal greetings from the people's republic, darlin! :)Ethics must begin at the top of an organization. It is a leadership issue and the chief executive must set the example.
Looking for cheap high-quality software?
Our site might be just what you need.http://ethmolith.dbsoft.biz
We offer Sof
Title: Turnkey
surreal yeats cinematic pornographer assuage citrate conscious rubric nazism zippy carlyle adulthood coherent bony odyssey deborah mallard lesotho showroom daydream anastigmatic baltic brace cowgirl captivate classmate conferred peridotite reconcile proclaim dreyfuss was brainchil
Fraternal greetings from the people's republic, darlin! :)Ethics must begin at the top of an organization. It is a leadership issue and the chief executive must set the example.
Looking for cheap high-quality software?
Our site might be just what you need.http://ethmolith.dbsoft.biz
We offer Sof
[Bear with me while I figure out this "Mail-Followup-To" business with
mutt. I am subscribed to the list, so no To|Cc's please.]
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
> So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a "Do over"? You
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 07:35:02AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Why not ?
OK, so would the liar and the cad both shut up, please? Take this off
list. We've seen enough to decide for ourselves what your characters
are. Drop it.
(I hate having to maintain a killfile for this list.)
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
ass
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
> so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
>that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendmen
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> has no *current* free implementation.
Then all binaries must go in non-free since they depend on the non-free cpu
microcode
[Bear with me while I figure out this "Mail-Followup-To" business with
mutt. I am subscribed to the list, so no To|Cc's please.]
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
> So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a "Do over"? You
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 07:35:02AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Why not ?
Thomas writes:
> The issue is not about "firmware", it's about whether there is changeable
> software which we are prevented from changing by licensing restrictions.
Software _that we are distributing_. Real firmware is irrelevant as we do
not and need not distribute it at all: it's part of the h
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:31:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Abiding the SC is a duty of the whole project, not just of Release
> > Manager.
>
> So why does the whole project seem shocked and appalled that I'm actually
OK, so would the liar and the cad both shut up, please? Take this off
list. We've seen enough to decide for ourselves what your characters
are. Drop it.
(I hate having to maintain a killfile for this list.)
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
ass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I second Craig Sanders' resolution
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00307.html
which reads:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the
> CS == Craig Sanders [2004-4-29]
[...]
CS> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
CS> proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
CS> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
CS> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
> so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
>that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>General Resolution "Editorial Amendmen
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> has no *current* free implementation.
Then all binaries must go in non-free since they depend on the non-free cpu
microcode
Thomas writes:
> The issue is not about "firmware", it's about whether there is changeable
> software which we are prevented from changing by licensing restrictions.
Software _that we are distributing_. Real firmware is irrelevant as we do
not and need not distribute it at all: it's part of the h
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:31:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Abiding the SC is a duty of the whole project, not just of Release
> > Manager.
>
> So why does the whole project seem shocked and appalled that I'm actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I second Craig Sanders' resolution
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00307.html
which reads:
i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
that the
> CS == Craig Sanders [2004-4-29]
[...]
CS> i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
CS> proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads:
CS> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
CS> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
>so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> (2004 vote
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 08:25]:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I don't think this is right. If there is no dependency, the thing
> > doesn't have to be in contrib.
> >
> > Remember, a thing goes in contrib because it is only usefu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
>so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> (2004 vote
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> > must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> > has no *current* free i
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> has no *current* free implementation.
Yes, that's right, but this refers to dependencies in the forma
Anthony Towns writes:
> I don't know much Dutch history, but afaics, it'd be the equivalent of
> the US choosing to ignore the first amendment immediately after enacting
> it [...]
Ironically, this is exactly what the United States did. Go look up
the "Alien and Sedition Acts" on the net someti
Anthony Towns writes:
> Well, that's fine, and is now clearly the case. I can't see why you'd do
> anything but expect the procedure to be dropped once the interpretation
> it was based on was rendered implausible.
I haven't said anything to the contrary that I can recall; if I did,
it was wrong
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:57:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > > I believe that any serious problem here is one that the release
> > > > manager created.
> > > It gets pretty boring repeating myself all the time, but, again, I'm no
Title: Turnkey
ribonucleic aberrant carruthers dew elena football triplett broach equivocal dot embroider lope delphinus emanate grammatic among cricket mcallister truthful
hal roomful upholster seismic contrast corrugate dateline duck launch visionary vow desideratum affect
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 08:25]:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I don't think this is right. If there is no dependency, the thing
> > doesn't have to be in contrib.
> >
> > Remember, a thing goes in contrib because it is only usefu
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:46:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > it was Anthony Towns in Message-ID:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that first involved
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - but you wouldn't want to let an irrelevant
> > little thing like truth get
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
> > true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
> > fact that it already ex
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
> true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
> fact that it already exists in ROM, doesn't change anything. The problem
> is then, considering that we
Hi,
Preferring to reply to you instead of Thomas since he insists to provoke
people.
Quoting Chad Walstrom:
> > Thus I didn't vote.
>
> So, now you feel it is entirely rational to get a "Do over"? You
Why not ? People do mistakes ... a bunch of volunteers can do collective
mistakes.
> weren'
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> I do not consider it very strange if for practical reasons some
> agreements are not followed up to the letter -- that is done all over
> the world. Example: According to Dutch law, it is forbidden to posess
> any drugs (Opium
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:07:17AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In any case, I disliked the old procedure; I thought it was based on
> an incorrect interpretation of the Social Contract; so I happily
> supported and voted for the GR which amended the Social Contract to
> make clear that the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:41:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
> > implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
> > rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 12:26:31AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Is it known whether the sarge-ignore status of
> #211765: xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free
> Software License B is not DFSG-free
> is affected by the current situation? It is not clear from the bug
>
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:57:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > > I believe that any serious problem here is one that the release
> > > manager created.
> > It gets pretty boring repeating myself all the time, but, again, I'm not
> > willing to accept the blame
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> > must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> > has no *current* free i
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
> must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
> has no *current* free implementation.
Yes, that's right, but this refers to dependencies in the forma
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know much Dutch history, but afaics, it'd be the equivalent of
> the US choosing to ignore the first amendment immediately after enacting
> it [...]
Ironically, this is exactly what the United States did. Go look up
the "Alien and Sedition Acts
Hi,
On 29 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> And so the question is "why can I not modify these bits?" and the
> answer is: the author refuses to permit me access to the source and
> restricts my copying of the bits.
I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
78 matches
Mail list logo
