On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> > >
Our existing support for non-f
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> >
> > I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's
> > proposal, not mine.
> >
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> > >
Our existing support for non-f
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > > | 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 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> >
> > I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's
> > proposal, not mine.
> >
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > > | 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 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > | support interoperability s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > | support interoperability s
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> | will acce
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> | will acce
> On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Debian's Social Contract with its Users
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:45:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
> software community; see 4.
I agree.
In fact, I've removed "wi
> On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Debian's Social Contract with its Users
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:45:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
> software community; see 4.
I agree.
In fact, I've removed "wi
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian's Social Contract with its Users
Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
software community; see 4.
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote:
Debian's Social Contract with its Users
Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free
software community; see 4.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
|version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
|is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
|
|
|We will change the title of the social contrac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
|version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
|is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
|
|
|We will change the title of the social contrac
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:06:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
> version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
> is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven f
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:06:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
> version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
> is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
Deb
* Anthony Towns
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> | software.
> |
> | so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> What about th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
Deb
* Anthony Towns
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> | software.
> |
> | so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> What about th
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:57:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If we're amending the social contract and keeping non-free, I think we should
> amend:
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software.
Good
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:05:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would have been helpful to describe your changes.
Ok.
> Are DFSG 7 and 9 also required for entry into non-free?
Good point.
> I oppose this proposal because it increases confusion about what is
> part of the distribution and increas
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:57:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If we're amending the social contract and keeping non-free, I think we should
> amend:
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software.
Good
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>[...]
> If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
> to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:05:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would have been helpful to describe your changes.
Ok.
> Are DFSG 7 and 9 also required for entry into non-free?
Good point.
> I oppose this proposal because it increases confusion about what is
> part of the distribution and increas
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>[...]
> If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
> to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On 2004-01-10 15:26:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
have created "contri
On 2004-01-10 15:26:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
have created "contrib"
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> > current discussion about non-free.
>
> > I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what
> this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded. The wording still
> leaves open the question of whether "we have created [sections on
> our ftp site]" m
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> > current discussion about non-free.
>
> > I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what
> this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded. The wording still
> leaves open the question of whether "we have created [sections on
> our ftp site]" m
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standard
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
>
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Stan
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standard
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
>
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Stan
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of prog
This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
current discussion about non-free.
I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of prog
44 matches
Mail list logo
