Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

On 14/01/17 01:25, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:38:25AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> Of course, I take it as my fault (maybe because I recognized Sean as >> quite active already in the project, overestimating his grip of our >> common practices and general views) tha

Re: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members

Hi, On 18/09/10 16:43, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Tue, 14.09.2010 at 17:53:46 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli > wrote: >> in recent events I've attended as DPL, the topic of welcoming >> non-packaging contributors as project members has been a recurring one. >> Since it was also part of my platform an

Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements

On 24/03/10 00:27, Charles Plessy wrote: > Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild > our > system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC > or a binary program that is aimed at run on a Windows system. I conclude that > that kind

Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.

Hi, On 24/01/10 15:47, Charles Plessy wrote: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but not necessary

Re: Supermajority first?

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current > secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super > majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply > supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the b