Le mardi 11 novembre 2008 à 04:49 +, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> that complies with the DFSG". But it is surely irrelevant whether the
> licence text s
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 16:25 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
[...]
> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
> | fir
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 06:21:21PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of pro
Hi,
> | Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | | |
I think you've missed to count
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
here.
Cheers,
Bernd
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
Hi,
With a new option added to the list, the discussion period is
extended again, by a week, starting 10 Nov 2008 21:28:29.
The proposals, tentatively, as reproduced below.
|+---+---+---+---+---|
|
On Mon Nov 10 16:05, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Also, it's in the process of being resolved. There are (according to
> >> another thread) talks with Sun about explicitly licensing it under a
> >> better licence.
> >
> > The stuff in the kernel is also in the process of being resolved.
>
>
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then I suppose the best thing would be for you to downgrade the bug from
> RC.
I'm not one of the release managers nor am I a glibc maintainer, so I
don't think that would be an appropriate action for me to take. I've just
been following the bug for a f
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:45:37PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> GNU alone is not an OS
Actually, it is. But hardly anyone uses GNU's kernel, the Hurd.
Instead, most people use Linux as their kernel. Since that particular
combination is so common, it has a name: GNU/Linux.
> the kernel al
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
>> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
>> > > for release? Is t
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> > On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > > for release? Is there a particular
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
>
> >> I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in
> >> that no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and
> >> badl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
>> I think it's fairly obvious that glibc meets the DFSG in practice, in
>> that no one is ever going to attempt to apply the ambiguous and
>> badly-written portions of the Sun RPC license in a way that migh
* Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software does
On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> > need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particula
-=| Manoj Srivastava, Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600 |=-
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progr
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> > need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's pa
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software doesn't
> need to meet the DFSG, or is it just that it's particularly inconvenient
> to release without it?
I think
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the k
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you
> objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement?
> The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give
> the authority; it just con
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lo
I second Manoj's proposal below.
ma, 2008-11-10 kello 12:21 -0600, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowle
Hi,
The proposals we have before us either call for a delay in
lenny, or in some way override or try to do an end run around the
social contract. This is in contrast to the vote we had for etch,
where we said that the blobs must be distributed under the DFSG -- the
only thing that was
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> With binary blobs inside or outside of debian, my computer will run just
> the same. It's just that outside main it won't be supported by debian --
> at least not officially. It will be harder to install, as well.
I think I sai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Debian won't run on a large fraction of hardware any more.
> ...
>> To restate the obvious: After the transition a lot of current debian
>> users won't be using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:27:59 +0100 Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
>>> and SC #4 are not consistent. That is, that "our priori
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Debian won't run on a large fraction of hardware any more.
...
> To restate the obvious: After the transition a lot of current debian
> users won't be using debian anymore.
So what's the problem? We want to provide a 100% free
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:27:59 +0100 Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
>> and SC #4 are not consistent. That is, that "our priorities are our users"
>> is incompatible with our system being "100% free".
>
> T
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
>
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `
>
> Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:27:59 +0100 Robert Millan wrote:
> I think you're trying to imply that somehow SC #1
> and SC #4 are not consistent. That is, that "our priorities are our users"
> is incompatible with our system being "100% free".
They are inc
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
> | majority)
> `
Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian
is more than the releases a
32 matches
Mail list logo
