Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand > how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like > that, with no luck. > > To be able to make the distinction, one would also have

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:22:38PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > >- > > > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement: > > > > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section

Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Raul Miller > > > 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software [...] > > It's clear to me that the release manager was drawing a distinction > > between "software" and "copyrighted works distributable in digital form". > > This

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:33:58AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: > Short and sweet and lacks political hubbub. Just decide that we > shouldn't have to change release policy 6 months after the release > was supposed to happen. Why sould really need to modify SC or > foundation document for saying that?

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > -- > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election > 4.1. Powers >Together, the Developers may: > 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. These >

Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

I Second this proposal. Short and sweet and lacks political hubbub. Just decide that we shouldn't have to change release policy 6 months after the release was supposed to happen. Why sould really need to modify SC or foundation document for saying that? -- Riku Voipio| riku.voipio a

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:41:13AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >- > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement: > > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section > of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming >

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 03:15:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Whether or not it changed the SC is a matter for debate; but it is > undisputed that the policies of the project did change drastically due > to that GR. Agreed. > What would you suggest that paragraph should say in order to > ac

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:04:34 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>> In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close > to release, and the previously released version is quite out of > date, our comm

Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:19:40 +0200, Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Every single one of the GR proposals that's on the table right now > seems to me to suggest that the meaning -has- changed, and none > speak of the changes as editorial. That seems to me as a fairly > strong indic

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:41:13 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > One of the point of contention is whether the meaning of the SC was > changed by the latest GR, and if yes, in what ways. I don't feel it > was changed at all myself, so I feel uneasy to vote in favor of a > proposal w

Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:19:49PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > Ah, that's probably it. That's one way of reading it I hadn't considered. > I considered "Debian" to be the noun, and still do, but at least this makes > sense, logically speaking. Thanks. Hmm... I guess I could see Debian bei

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Wed, 5 May 2004 at 13:06:39 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > 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 Con

Re: DFSG#10

* Tore Anderson > To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about > the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively > concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing > "copyrighted works distributable in digital fo

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the > resolution: > > --- > The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom, > and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point > upd

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the GR from the > > underlying issues, we won't have much to go on for similar issues. On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:06:06PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > I am not exactly sure I follo

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the > > social contract in the statement. > > Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > So, trying again, how about "the same criterion that were applied prior > to GR 2004_003?" Does this avoid assuming the changes to the social > contract were not editorial in nature? Note that "editorial in nature" is largely irrelev

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:27:12AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the > social contract in the statement. Note, however, that if you work too hard to isolate the GR from the underlying issues, we won't have much to go on for similar

Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the > changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial. I agree. I think there are a couple of proposals [0][1] being made that don't make the assumption

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > > Was the GFDL used in woody at all? > > > > Regardless, I think the statement should use more defi

Re: DFSG#10

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand > how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like > that, with no luck. > > To be able to make the distinction, one would also have

Re: DFSG#10

* Raul Miller > Here's the prior text of the first clause of the social contract: > > 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software > > We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free > software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include > the

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > I'm one of the people who consider that the current SC allows to > release sarge as is (of course after fixing the open technical issues, > e.g. the RC-bugs). Can you spell out your reasoning? I think it's fair to say that the curre

Re: DFSG#10

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:57:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > I'm not going to follow arguments that are clearly erroneous. If you > would like to pursue an analysis that supposes that the Release > Manager was acting within his purview, go ahead. But I don't see how > it can be supported eith

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040522 21:10]: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > In this particular case, the delegate refuses to share his > > interpretation of the proposed texts, meaning that the developers have > > no idea about which of the proposals wil

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:23:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:30:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I beg to differ. Debian have ongoing discussion with the FSF on this issue, > > see for the > > status. T

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >- > > > > > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement: > > > > > > "On the question on

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sat, 22 May 2004, Graham Wilson wrote: > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section > of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming > release code-named Sarge, we resolve that all programs must meet the I assume programs != firmwares >

Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > How about: > > > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement: > > > > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section > > of our archiv