Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 08:53:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > In addition to the simple restrictions of freedoms imposed by the > Invariant Sections, they also cause practical problems: [...] This is a huge chunk of text for a dcoument that's already a bit too long to be easily re

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR > > process to issue a position statement for something the project has > > already decided on? 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Together, the Developers may

Results for Declassification of debian-private list archives

Hi, Firstly, a belated Happy new year to all of you, gentle readers. Belated, since apparently a malfunctioning router ate my previous announcement, honest. At the end of voting, with 348 Ballots resulting in 305 votes from 298 developers, "Establish declassification procedure

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

Hi, I have taken the liberty of re-adding bits to the position statement I considered important, and I would be happy to hear reasons why they should not be in the position statement we publish. manoj On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000, Anthony Towns said: -> --- Why the GNU

Re: I cannot vote.

On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 14:22 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > From: Thomas Bushnell > From: BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So the first of those addresses doesn't have an @ sign, and so fails all > sorts of validation checks. The correct way of doing this, I think, is like > so: Some MTA will attempt

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The release team has spoken, and they decide what goes in a > release. If they have decided, under advice from debian-legal, that > GFDL docs are RC bugs, then that is that. I've now also found:

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:30:32 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR >> process to issue a position statement for something the project has >> already decided on? > How do we know t

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR > process to issue a position statement for something the project has > already decided on? How do we know the project has decided on it? Not a flippant question. That's felt like it's been

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR >>> process to issue a position statement for something the project has >>> already decided on? >> How

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR >> process to issue a position statement for something the project has >> already decided on? > > H

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

On 1/1/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > (2) How does it fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software? > > The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in > a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a copyleft > license, one of the consequences of this is tha

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

* Anthony Towns: > Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please. > > It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid > non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing > GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious ab

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR process to issue a position statement for something the project has already decided on? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:51:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:28:16AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Perhaps retitle it to > > Why the current version of the GNU Free Documentation License is > > not suitable for Debian main > > "Why the GNU Free Doc

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:25:37AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style ... > Since this has already been seconded as-is here, I thought it best to > comment here instead of making random unauthorised edits to a wiki. On Sun, Jan 01, 2006

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

I'd like to propose a few, uh, editorial amendments ;-) On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > --- > Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main > ~~ > > (0) Summary > > Withi

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style [Anthony Towns] > (0) Summary > > Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of > concern about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether > it is, in fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to