t;
Were it not for the fact that your axiom is fatally flawed, I would
like your idea :)
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
t the time it was
introduced, and I'm not in favour of it now either.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
another
reason (beside general agreement) why people keep quiet on these lists.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
approval of the author. A mere lack of
objection is not enough - however it does seem to me that this is a road that
some are keen to travel down.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips / nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I suppose we could have a lengthy email
> exchange, and assume that the sponsors are still paying attention to
> every mail in the deluge that is -vote;
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, all the references I have found tell me that firmware
> is computer programs.
>
Interesting, as I note that *none* of those you quoted do so -- although
some do say that it is "software" that is stored in less-volatile
storage than RAM.
Given the sca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, without further ado:
>
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work
> of software is
On 24/07/2006, at 8:41 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A GR should wait - within reasonable time - until developers can
have the information they need for a informed decision.
The constitution specifies the time that the GR needs to be in
discussion, and the period determined is a minimu
MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> propose the following amendment to the Debian constitution. This had
> >> been discussed at length last month, and suggestions and discussion
> >> have died down. I would like to seek seconds for this proposal at
> >> this time.
>
> I
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > wh
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> > that is the
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> > determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.
> If
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> &
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> > essentially this:
> >
> > We will include GFDL&#x
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:11:11PM -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the
> authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who
> decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through
> GRs
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
Good point; it would probably be a good idea to announce them on d-d-a.
Cheers,
Nick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
sts might happen.
I also don't believe that it's acceptable to break the Monotonicity Criterion.
If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then
I think the vote should probably be considered void.
Sorry I don't have time to make much more of a contribution th
18 matches
Mail list logo
