On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:52:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also
> Free But Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies
> to Software, P
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Dude, consensus doesn't mean "me, and the people who agree with me",
> > it means "everyone", "everyone, apart from a few people who don't really
> > mind in any case" or "everyone, apart from maybe a few crazy people".
> >From the
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:52:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:56:06PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > > right?
> >
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless you're suggesting that our current decisions should be
> based on the results of future votes?
It would make things a lot easier if we could figure out how to make
it work! :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsu
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 10:40:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A 4.8:1 supermajority seems to indicate that the public
> opinion was pretty clear.
Before those hundred developers voted, some other interpretations were
plausible. After they voted, that was no longer the case.
Unless y
On Thu, 27 May 2004 07:53:38 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:12PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> For anything not in the "distribution" (e.g. the web pages), I
>> would agree. However, I _do_ think that the social contract is
>> saying that anything i
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:12PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> For anything not in the "distribution" (e.g. the web pages), I would
> agree. However, I _do_ think that the social contract is saying that
> anything in the "distribution" must be free software.
Sure.
But what you're showing here
> > > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > > > right?
>
> > > One issue here is that "Debian" is an adjective, and you have to dub
> > > in the noun. If that noun is "Software", you get a different meaning
> > > than if that noun is "Copyrighted Works"
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > It was disallowed by the old social contract. There was a clear
> > consensus, and I'm not the only one saying that [1] [2] [3].
>
> Dude, consensus doesn't mean "me, and the people who agree with me",
> it means "everyone", "ev
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The Social Contract defines the distribution as being entirely free
> > software. "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" don't
> > belong in the distribution.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the social contract is not asking
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> It was disallowed by the old social contract. There was a clear
> consensus, and I'm not the only one saying that [1] [2] [3].
Dude, consensus doesn't mean "me, and the people who agree with me",
it means "everyone", "everyone, apar
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:52:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also
...
That just means that those other elements aren't part of the contract.
Alternatively
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:56:06PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > right?
>
> wrong.
>
> it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free so
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> The Social Contract defines the distribution as being entirely free
> software. "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" don't
> belong in the distribution.
I'm pretty sure that the social contract is not asking us to avoid
> > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > > right?
> > One issue here is that "Debian" is an adjective, and you have to dub
> > in the noun. If that noun is "Software", you get a different meaning
> > than if that noun is "Copyrighted Works". As it hap
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:57:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I'm not going to follow arguments that are clearly erroneous. If you
> > would like to pursue an analysis that supposes that the Release
> > Manager was acting within his purview, go ahead. But I don't see how
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > right?
> >
> > I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong.
>
> If Debian is 100% software, does that mean developers c
* Tore Anderson
> I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
> changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
* Manoj Srivastava
> As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual
> who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand
> how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like
> that, with no luck.
>
> To be able to make the distinction, one would also have
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Raul Miller
>
> > 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
[...]
> > It's clear to me that the release manager was drawing a distinction
> > between "software" and "copyrighted works distributable in digital form".
>
> This
On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:19:40 +0200, Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Every single one of the GR proposals that's on the table right now
> seems to me to suggest that the meaning -has- changed, and none
> speak of the changes as editorial. That seems to me as a fairly
> strong indic
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:19:49PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Ah, that's probably it. That's one way of reading it I hadn't considered.
> I considered "Debian" to be the noun, and still do, but at least this makes
> sense, logically speaking. Thanks.
Hmm... I guess I could see Debian bei
* Tore Anderson
> To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about
> the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively
> concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing
> "copyrighted works distributable in digital fo
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
> changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
I agree. I think there are a couple of proposals [0][1] being made that
don't make the assumption
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand
> how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like
> that, with no luck.
>
> To be able to make the distinction, one would also have
* Raul Miller
> Here's the prior text of the first clause of the social contract:
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include
> the
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:57:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> I'm not going to follow arguments that are clearly erroneous. If you
> would like to pursue an analysis that supposes that the Release
> Manager was acting within his purview, go ahead. But I don't see how
> it can be supported eith
Hamish Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Because there is some confusion over what the actual effects of the
> > various options in GR 2004_003 are, I have undertaken an analysis.
>
> Walter, your analysis is useful but does not seem to be neutral;
28 matches
Mail list logo
