On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> While we could update the wording to say s/CD/optical medium/ (or
> something similar), SC seems like an odd place to give Debian redistributors
> legal advice.
I would have thought something like this would be best:
We encourage redistributors
On 2016-09-21 11:01:50, Iain Lane wrote:
> This is a new proposal which supersedes my previous one
> <20160920165427.oeiaxkms7e63bao4@nightingale> (that proposal is
> withdrawn).
>
>
>
> Title: debian-private shall remain pr
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I hereby propose the following GR:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> The following sentence is removed from the Social Contract §5:
>
> "We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these
> areas and determine if
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I hereby propose the following GR:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> The following sentence is removed from the Social Contract §5:
>
> "We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these
> areas and determine if
I hereby propose the following GR:
=== BEGIN GR TEXT ===
The following sentence is removed from the Social Contract §5:
"We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these
areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs."
=== END GR TEXT ===
Rat
Iain Lane writes ("Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge
difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> I'm not quite sure of the terminology - I think it should be a separate
> option to be voted on on the same ballot as Gunnar's proposal.
I think you have not quite enough
6 matches
Mail list logo
