On 2004-01-28 14:03:43 + Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The first group feels the need to redefine the semantic of "software"
because, according to the current foundation documents, Debian can't
ship anything but software. We have to ship documentation, so we
redefine documen
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:03:43PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I don't think these are "pretty much the same thing". Not at
> all. Raul's version (which is the current version) says that Debian
> contains only free software.
Except, it doesn't use the phrase "contains only".
--
Raul
On 2004-01-28 14:03:43 + Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The first group feels the need to redefine the semantic of "software"
because, according to the current foundation documents, Debian can't
ship anything but software. We have to ship documentation, so we
redefine documenta
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> |--
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
> Pretty much
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:03:43PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I don't think these are "pretty much the same thing". Not at
> all. Raul's version (which is the current version) says that Debian
> contains only free software.
Except, it doesn't use the phrase "contains only".
--
Raul
--
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> |--
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
> Pretty much
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the
licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free
on their CDs?
DVDs are the most obvious answer.
Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs pr
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further
distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is
compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also
distributable
without restriction (and more). If this w
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the
licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free
on their CDs?
DVDs are the most obvious answer.
Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs pre-lo
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote:
Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further
distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is
compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also
distributable
without restriction (and more). If this was n
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as,
> the current SC):
>
> We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses
> of the packages in these areas and determine if
> they can di
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as,
> the current SC):
>
> We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses
> of the packages in these areas and determine if
> they can di
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It doesn't seem to make much sense to mention our lack of guarantee for
> non-free when, indeed, the following is true, too:
>
> we do not guarantee all software in the main
> area may be distributed in other ways.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It doesn't seem to make much sense to mention our lack of guarantee for
> non-free when, indeed, the following is true, too:
>
> we do not guarantee all software in the main
> area may be distributed in other ways.
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the senten
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence les
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
> only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less pertinent.
Here's someone else's opini
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
> only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less pertinent.
Here's someone else's opini
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what "100% free" means without the
word
"software". "Free software" is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word "internet" (Raul: isn't
Internet capital
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragrap
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what "100% free" means without the
word
"software". "Free software" is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word "internet" (Raul: isn't
Internet capitalized?
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragrap
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
>1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
>
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording differ
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
>1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> software |
>
> Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording differ
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
> off until at least tomorrow.
> This comparison is based on
> Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andrew Suffield's GR,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:54:09PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> But not very well. ;-) Consider wrapping down to 76 or even 70
> instead of 80 characters.
Thanks for the summary, in any case. It was a useful comparison.
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
> off until at least tomorrow.
> This comparison is based on
> Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andrew Suffield's GR,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines.
>
>
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> --
> |--
But not very w
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:54:09PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> But not very well. ;-) Consider wrapping down to 76 or even 70
> instead of 80 characters.
Thanks for the summary, in any case. It was a useful comparison.
--
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragra
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines.
>
>
> Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield
> --
> |--
But not very w
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph
32 matches
Mail list logo
