On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
> translate to an emergency on my or Debian's part.
The failure to do this is no more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
> This is what matters.
What is your evidence of this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/6/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just your opinion, not a fact.
--
ciao,
Marco
signatu
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> >> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> >> > accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> >> > mindlessl
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:18:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> >> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> >> work or not. Are they?
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:38:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scs
Sven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
>
> Are those
On 9/6/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suggesting the reverse would be a massive change of course for Debian
as a whole.
Would this massive change of course be a "suggestion"?
Or would it be something that actually exists?
If it's a suggestion, I'm not sure your assertion i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
>> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
>> > accepted by everybody in Debian and most peop
Anthony Towns writes:
> As best I can see, our users expect us to release etch soon rather than
> either of the approaches to fixing that that have been mooted so far
> (drop drivers or delay etch), and I don't believe we can fairly say
> we're putting the needs of our users (or free software) fi
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
> users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do w
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
>> work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
>> a delay. If the answer is "n
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Right. And the problem is that the d-i team seems to say to
> themselves, "as long as we never do the work, we can badger the rest
> of Debian into sacrificing the Project's principles, and the work will
> never be necessary."
Um, no.
a) I told people at DebConf tha
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:25:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> > > >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> > > >hard to follow tha
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:56:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > We are quickly reaching the poi
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and
> > > still
> > > maintainin
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
> > logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
> > the license of documents like the Debian Manifest
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ warning: quote attribution missing ]
> >> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
> >> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
> >> didn't quote were in the proposal.
> >What d
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >No, prove that you would otherwise support a similar amendment.
> I am not sure how this can be done. [...]
By putting one forward, for example.
Actions, not hollow promises. After all, my proposal is essentially
"a new archiv
> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[more files and...]
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
>
> Are those not those which have gone in the firmware-nonfree or whatever
> package which was uploaded yesterday to non-free ?
Possibly. That list was dated "August 31, 2006".
Thanks,
--
MJR
On Sep 06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> > >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> > >hard to follow that change.
> > We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admit
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:45:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> >hard to follow that change.
> We followed the SC pretty
* Anthony Towns [2006-09-05 09:49]:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
>
> (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be
> presumed on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
>Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
>hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
the change was not appropriate
Joseph Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These results are meaningless. I'll leave it to others to decide if
The results are not meaningless. They do reflect the opinion of those
who participated on the poll. Saying that the results reflect the
opinion of either the project or the users as a whol
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
>
> That's not entirely true, according to
> http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
>
> Relative to sarge, 13
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
That's not entirely true, according to
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
Relative to sarge, 13 new sourceless-firmware-contaminated files have
found their way int
On 10768 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
All that sounds for me pretty much like
"Oh well, its hard to fit our own goals, so lets ch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> I would otherwise support a similar amendment, but I
>> >> in this form I consider it harmful to our cause.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Prove it.
>> I should prove that Debian distributing illegal proprietary kernel
>> drivers would really be a bad idea?
>No, pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
>> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
>> didn't quote were in the proposal.
>What do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
>kernel free software?
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 =E0 17:28 -0400, Joey Hess a =E9crit :
> > AIUI, I would word your proposal something like this:
> >=20
> > 3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
> >without free firmware, the Debian installation media i
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> > accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> > mindlessly following
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
> a delay. If the answer is "no", then I see no reason that a delay
> will change
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I would otherwise support a similar amendment, but I
> >> in this form I consider it harmful to our cause.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Prove it.
> I should prove that Debian distributing illegal proprietary kernel
> drivers would really be a bad idea?
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and
> > still
> > maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote
> > o
36 matches
Mail list logo
