On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is documen
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is documentation. H
> However, if that's not clear to people, the proper place to address that
> question would be in the DFSG.
That's a very good point, agreed.
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Descr
On 2004-01-13 13:25:52 + Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software? [...]
No, b
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
> documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
> wonder if we need to go one step further. "Software and data that does
> not", or
> > 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
>
> Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
wonder if we need to go one step fu
> However, if that's not clear to people, the proper place to address that
> question would be in the DFSG.
That's a very good point, agreed.
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available
signature.asc
Descr
On 2004-01-13 13:25:52 + Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software? [...]
No, but equ
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
> documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
> wonder if we need to go one step further. "Software and data that does
> not", or
> > 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
>
> Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does
documentation == software? If we're cleaning up the social contract, I
wonder if we need to go one step fu
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'd like to call for seconds on this proposal, [especially from Sven
> and Hamish, if this new one meets your requirements].
I certainly support this in principal and will await your final version
before signing a second. Also I must p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'd like to call for seconds on this proposal, [especially from Sven
> and Hamish, if this new one meets your requirements].
I certainly support this in principal and will await your final version
before signing a second. Also I must p
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I second this proposal.
Thanks.
But, um... since I got the name of LSB wrong, I'm going to have to
re-issue the proposal again.
I think, when I re-issue it tonight, I'll ask for a delay on seconding,
just in case there's anything els
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's a non-issue, as near as I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
|I propose the following resolution:
|
|We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
|by the recent constitutional amendment. The first replacement document
|will be the social contract below, and the second replacement docum
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
>
> That's a non-issue, as near as I can
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I second this proposal.
Thanks.
But, um... since I got the name of LSB wrong, I'm going to have to
re-issue the proposal again.
I think, when I re-issue it tonight, I'll ask for a delay on seconding,
just in case there's anything els
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's a non-issue, as near as I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
|I propose the following resolution:
|
|We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
|by the recent constitutional amendment. The first replacement document
|will be the social contract below, and the second replacement docum
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> > discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
>
> That's a non-issue, as near as I can
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:43:55PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of software
> > that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> >
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
> one which is not yet in the mailing list archives,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:43:55PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of software
> > that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> >
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
> one which is not yet in the mailing list archives,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
That's a non-issue, as near as I can tell.
If there's some problem you're trying to solve, please specify
I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Desc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
> discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
That's a non-issue, as near as I can tell.
If there's some problem you're trying to solve, please specify
I submit that this was written without any consideration of the
discussion following Branden's efforts earlier this year.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Desc
The biggest reason for my most recent proposal is to make the social
contract say what it is that we've been doing in the context of non-free.
However, I've addressed a number of more minor problems [for example,
removing references to specific technologies, such as "GNU/Linux",
"FTP" and "CDs", a
Comments on my most recent proposal.
The proposal consists of four kinds of changes:
[A] Making the social contract more generic than Linux. This means
changing the meta-title (the first line of the document) from "Debian
GNU/Linux Social Contract" to "Debian's Social Contract", and
making a si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but which is quoted at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/de
The biggest reason for my most recent proposal is to make the social
contract say what it is that we've been doing in the context of non-free.
However, I've addressed a number of more minor problems [for example,
removing references to specific technologies, such as "GNU/Linux",
"FTP" and "CDs", a
Comments on my most recent proposal.
The proposal consists of four kinds of changes:
[A] Making the social contract more generic than Linux. This means
changing the meta-title (the first line of the document) from "Debian
GNU/Linux Social Contract" to "Debian's Social Contract", and
making a si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but which is quoted at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/de
34 matches
Mail list logo
