Debian Project secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
>>> CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
>> CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature from "Martin F. Krafft
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" aka "Mart
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This requirement is extremly costly for anyone attempting to
> distribute Sarge either as a mirror or as an ISO image.
Can you point to testimony of people actually hindered by this?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EM
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> As I expect that at least one of the seconds/proposer will object to
> this amendment (heh), I'm actively looking for seconds myself now.
I personally object to this because I find actually what you call bugs
to be much more pra
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
> Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
> Good signature from "Martin F. Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
>aka "Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
>ak
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:09:49AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adeodato Sim? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
> > Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
> > its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> > Lice
Hi,
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
Good signature from "Martin F. Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
aka "Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
aka "Martin F. Krafft (Debian) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merle Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to "either include a
>> machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or [...]
>> ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at t
* Esteban Manchado Velázquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-13 09:26]:
> I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
I hereby second this proposal as well.
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> > existing te
Merle Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to "either include a
> machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or
> [...] ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible
> at the stated location until at least one year aft
Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
> imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place:
> =C2=ABHey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool
> program and releasing it under
In linux.debian.vote Adeodato wrote:
> I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
> Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a paragraph
> and reword a couple sentences, but I didn't quite
I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
> Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a p
I hereby second this proposal. I actually have yet to read both the
original proposal and dato's amended proposal but I have read enough
to decide that having two proposals in the vote will better help
Debian developers to vote for the one which fits their own thoughts.
So, in short, I don't know
Thanks to Luk for setting things straight. I hereby second Dato's
proposal, which is included in full below.
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
> > It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> > non-free documentation went into effect [0]
Seconded.
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> > > =
> > >
> > > This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License as published by the
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:33:36AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And please, I don't want to see answers saying that the documentation
> can be put in non-free, because, due the the debian policy, `kde`
> meta-package (same is true for gnome) beeing in main, cannot depend
> upon the non free k
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Seconded.
Hamish
> ---8<---
>
> Deb
Le Ven 13 Janvier 2006 00:09, martin f krafft a écrit :
> also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455
+0100]:
> > Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section
> > of its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> > License that include n
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
>
>> Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
>> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
>> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Co
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
> Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
> Acknowl
Le Jeu 12 Janvier 2006 22:28, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> I second the proposal quoted below.
and I do the same.
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> > =
> >
> > This is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:53:04PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Having invariant sections (or any other non-free stuff) in main could
> be seen as a betrayal of the people who chose the license.
This is not about invariant sections. This is about the other bugs in
the GFDL the FSF has not fixed (ye
I second the proposal quoted below.
I'm following debian-vote through the archives, so if you wish to reply or
comment to me specifically, CC me.
Christopher Martin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
Adeodato Simó, 2006-01-12 15:10:40 +0100 :
[...]
> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help,
> at all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their
> authors intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve
> that, like a form of betrayal. Apolo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
>
> > What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> > FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> > anyway, no?
>
> Right, FS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060112 15:09]:
>> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
>> all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
>>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
> > What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> > FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> > anyway, no?
> Right, FSF stuf
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060112 15:09]:
> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
> all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
> intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like
> a form of betrayal.
It
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
> What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the pos
* MJ Ray [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:52 +]:
> Also, this fails to address the security ban and the forced
> Transparent downloads/availability.
'Cause this amendment is not about trying to engage in legal-type
discussion about whether those two can be work-arounded or not. It's:
"we regard
Adeodato Sim=C3=B3
>Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
>its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
>License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
>Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:42:00AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
> > > II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
> > The way we distribute source and binaries doesn't meet this requirement;
> Well, this assuming that distributing the source in the same
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
> > Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
> > enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside wi
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> existing text with the one below.
(The purpose being to indicate the GFDL only needs to be in non-free
due to invariant sections. This would be nice if it were tru
[Apologies for the previous empty mail. Key hiccup.]
* Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]:
> It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
> GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we shoul
* Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]:
> It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
> GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
> that, and as part of that
37 matches
Mail list logo
