On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, ...
>
> ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> or other such commercial software.
>
> What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
> DFSG ?
>
> This is t
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, ...
>
> ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> or other such commercial software.
>
> What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
> DFSG ?
>
> This is
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:26:11PM +0200, Jens M?ller wrote:
> > The first (first, mind you) promise that the Social Contract
> > makes is that the Debian distribution will not contain free software.
> (sic!)
HA! Whoops. Uh, "non-free", obviously.
--
_
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:26:11PM +0200, Jens M?ller wrote:
> > The first (first, mind you) promise that the Social Contract
> > makes is that the Debian distribution will not contain free software.
> (sic!)
HA! Whoops. Uh, "non-free", obviously.
--
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
The point at issue here is not "disks" per se, but rather the act of
_distribution_. The first (f
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
The point at issue here is not "disks" per se, but rather the act of
_distribution_. The first (
> What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> partners page, etc.?
What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking about?
> Perhaps you should read the social contract before your next post?
>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> As an example of what falls in the category covered by section 5,
> which is not commercial: if we have some software that has a "you can
> have the source, and you can give away the source or binaries for free,
> but you can't distribu
> What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the
> partners page, etc.?
What parts of the mail archives, the bug tracking system or the partners
pages constitute non-free software? What are you talking about?
> Perhaps you should read the social contract before your next post?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> As an example of what falls in the category covered by section 5,
> which is not commercial: if we have some software that has a "you can
> have the source, and you can give away the source or binaries for free,
> but you can't distrib
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:41:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> > software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendag
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:41:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> > software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appe
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> SUMMARY
> ---
>
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions. Below you will
>
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> SUMMARY
> ---
>
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions. Below you will
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 12:47:13AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Please give the components to get
> The components are typically something like: main contrib non-free
>
> Components [main contrib non-free]:
>
> This is a form of the question "do you want to consider
> non-free
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:02:13AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> That would greatly annoy me and involve hardcoding what "non-free" means
> into apt. I'm opposed to the latter for technical reasons, I'm apposed to
> the former for reasons thæt YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOULD AT ME FOR FIVE LINES
> TO TEL
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:08:40PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind for the web pages. I
> would suggest having names such as "official.debian.org" and
> "free.debian.org" for new free server. I hope that these names will
> be memorable enough, tha
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:22:45AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is part of the issue: I would like to be able to refer people to
> an official Debian web site, without thus referring people to the
> non-free packages. This is not the whole of the issue because the web
> is not the only in
18 matches
Mail list logo
