On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to
> > the the development of "technical measures" that will allow firmware to be
> > separated; Don's isn't an exception at all, and won't allow us to release
> >
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 05:08:28PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
> > something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
> > adoption of the DFSG,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
> something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
> adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then:
> we created the non-free and con
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:51:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello GR proponents,
>
> before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
> that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
>
> I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
>
> I am concerned
Hello GR proponents,
before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
reduce the usefulness of Debian
$149 Cruise to Canada From San Francisco Travelocity
http://www.bookingwiz.com/ss6.asp?mic=7ay6pha&fm_offer_id=06090115533
$229 Last-Minute Cruise Deals Many with Bonuses Cheap Tickets
http://www.bookingwiz.com/ss6.asp?mic=7ay6pha&fm_offer_id=060807133610999
$229 Fascination 4
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-07 13:35]:
> There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
> firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
> install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-fre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have not been the only one to be upset about the firmware situation
>every time it has been brought up, as can be verified by browsing the
>list archives. I can see that the controversy is old, but certainly
>not that your interpretation was "widely accepted."
Wrong. T
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:30:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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
> >> t
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:19:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "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
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Sep 07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
>> > This is what matters.
>> What is your evidence of this?
> My experience of 9 years in Debian, which can be verified
On Sep 07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
> > This is what matters.
> What is your evidence of this?
My experience of 9 years in Debian, which can be verified by browsing
the list archives.
--
ciao,
Marco
13 matches
Mail list logo
