Zenaan Harkness wrote:
In fact, perhaps someone can run a straw poll now "Is your fundamental
principle one of Freedom or one of Utility?" Although to prevent further
unnecessary flamage, a proper vote would probably be needed at some
point.
You are right, except the basic difference is not Fr
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
In fact, perhaps someone can run a straw poll now "Is your fundamental
principle one of Freedom or one of Utility?" Although to prevent further
unnecessary flamage, a proper vote would probably be needed at some
point.
You are right, except the basic difference is not Freedo
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> > to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > > non-free software ultim
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> > to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > > non-free software ultim
> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free
> > license.
> >
> > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one
> > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote
> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free
> > license.
> >
> > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one
> > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> > it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> > is non-free sof
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> > it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> > is non-free sof
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> is non-free software satisfies their needs as they themselves presently
> understand
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:53PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I believe that having Win98 freely available for anyone who wants to use
> it reduces the pool of people who want to *develop* Wine, because there
> is non-free software satisfies their needs as they themselves presently
> understand
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> > software authors.
> So
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> software authors.
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe having win98 availabl
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> > non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> > software authors.
> So
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the pa
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This seems like a pretty good example of how sometimes, distributing
> non-free software ultimately benefits... no one except for non-free
> software authors.
So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe having win98 availabl
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the pa
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
> > non-free aids in that.
>
> Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:14:05AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> > alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
>
> Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'kee
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But personally, I don't think reducing the size of non-free is a goal.
>
> If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> unfortuna
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 21:01, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Making software more useful and more available is the goal. I think
> > non-free aids in that.
>
> Well, I respect your personal opinion, but I tend to have another one.
This is
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:14:05AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> > alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
>
> Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'kee
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But personally, I don't think reducing the size of non-free is a goal.
>
> If, tomorrow, we get an email from Bill Gates saying "hey, if you want
> to include all the Windows 95 and 98 stuff in non-free, that'd be great;
> unfortuna
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'keep non-free'ers"? If you
want to be offensive, "you idiots" is much less s
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
Can we possible avoid phrases like "you 'keep non-free'ers"? If you
want to be offensive, "you idiots" is much less s
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
Size of non-free (by source package) in:
bo - 69
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:51:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
> social contract leaves open the possibility of having more than one
> idea about the direction of the project and almost any non-trivial
> "clairication" will,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
Size of non-free (by source package) in:
bo - 69
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social
> contract which change the direction of the project.
I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
social contract leaves open the possibility of h
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:51:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
> social contract leaves open the possibility of having more than one
> idea about the direction of the project and almost any non-trivial
> "clairication" will,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social
> contract which change the direction of the project.
I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current
social contract leaves open the possibility of h
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:50:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > That was because of security problems, not because Free alternatives
> > existed (and those alternatives existed *for years*, at least in the
> > case of netscape)
>
>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:50:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > That was because of security problems, not because Free alternatives
> > existed (and those alternatives existed *for years*, at least in the
> > case of netscape)
>
>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > > size in th
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > > size in th
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
I can't even figure out what that sentence is asking.
But, hey, don't let that stop you.
--
Raul
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the past.
>
> Well, didn't we remove all the netscape crap and adobe acr
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> What baffles me is why you 'keep non-free'ers think that encouraging
> alternatives would *not* be the status quo?
I can't even figure out what that sentence is asking.
But, hey, don't let that stop you.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:27:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> > the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> > size in the past.
>
> Well, didn't we remove all the netscape crap and adobe acr
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Let's not be hypocrit, and cont
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Let's not be hypocrit, and cont
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
And if you surgically remove your body from your neck down, you'll
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> > > much bigger pressure to eit
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
And if you surgically remove your body from your neck down, you'll
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> > much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> > alternatives, and you wil
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> alternatives, and you will hurt the upstream much more than by removing
> non-free, after all, y
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:22:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> > > much bigger pressure to eit
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:20:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:10:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 1
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:17:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> > much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> > alternatives, and you wil
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:46:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Let's not be hypocrit, and continue distributing non-free, but put a
> much bigger pressure to either free the code or replace it by free
> alternatives, and you will hurt the upstream much more than by removing
> non-free, after all, y
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:20:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:10:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 1
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:10:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > and all GNU documentation
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:10:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > and all GNU documentation
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > > it doesn't serve
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > > it doesn't serve
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> > you pry our cold
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> > you pry our cold
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
> to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
> names).
The sole reason why these documents have not already been drafted is
because nobo
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
> to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
> names).
The sole reason why these documents have not already been drafted is
because nobo
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:36:10PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
> >written.
>
> How many times will we see the "free software equivalent"
> impossibility advoc
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:36:10PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
> >written.
>
> How many times will we see the "free software equivalent"
> impossibility advoc
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the "free software equivalent"
impossibility advocated this month? Do we have software for running
sweepstakes packaged?
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the "free software equivalent"
impossibility advocated this month? Do we have software for running
sweepstakes packaged?
--
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> you pry our cold, dead hands from it."
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> you pry our cold, dead hands from it."
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of
On 2004-01-22 20:15:11 + Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
names).
You would also need to define the borders of their scope. In several
long
On 2004-01-22 20:15:11 + Andrew M.A. Cater
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
names).
You would also need to define the borders of their scope. In several
long disc
On 2004-01-22 18:41:33 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Namespaces are not a problem as long as it remains a strict subset
(i.e.
main only) of Debian, and indeed fsf-linux user finding a bug in a
package could presumably file it against the Debian BTS since if it is
a real bug then
On 2004-01-22 18:41:33 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Namespaces are not a problem as long as it remains a strict subset
(i.e.
main only) of Debian, and indeed fsf-linux user finding a bug in a
package could presumably file it against the Debian BTS since if it is
a real bug then it
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
> that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for
documentation describing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
> > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
> > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
> > run f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
> that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for
documentation describing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
> > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
> > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
> > run f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:41:33PM +, John Lines wrote:
> Apart from the GFDL I am not aware of any licences which are DFSG
> free, but which do not meet the description of Free Software as used
> by the Free Software Foundation. (and there the issue is the other
> way round)
I think you have
> > re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
> plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst
> others. There may be cases where debian reg
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:41:33PM +, John Lines wrote:
> Apart from the GFDL I am not aware of any licences which are DFSG
> free, but which do not meet the description of Free Software as used
> by the Free Software Foundation. (and there the issue is the other
> way round)
I think you have
> > re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
> plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst
> others. There may be cases where debian reg
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:09:30AM +, John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution,
> suitable for endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who
> already have machines and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
> which only contains main an
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:09:30AM +, John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution,
> suitable for endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who
> already have machines and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
> which only contains main an
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:24:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this t
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:24:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this t
On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
re-badge it as fsf-linux.
This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> John Lines wrote:
> > An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable
> > for
> > endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have
> > machines
> > and infrastructure, to set up a Deb
John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
> re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quit
On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
re-badge it as fsf-linux.
This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> John Lines wrote:
> > An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> > endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> > and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
> re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quit
An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quite a number of Debian based
An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quite a number of Debian based
90 matches
Mail list logo
