Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I'm concerned about proposal E. I believe it essentialy means that any
> changes that are made to the DFSG or SC won't have any effect if they make
> them more strict, but they will have effect if they relax them. Is that
> the intended in "[..] for a limited time, Debian
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > For example, I don't think it is reasonable even for those who support
> > proposal E that the new SC isn't enforced after Sarge, and that not
> > only Sarge but also Sa
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> For example, I don't think it is reasonable even for those who support
> proposal E that the new SC isn't enforced after Sarge, and that not
> only Sarge but also Sarge+1 releases with non-free firmware and docs
> of questionable DFSG
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:07:02 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Seems like the use of the word "limited" is ambigous. Any amount of
> > time is "limited" by a greater one.
>
> I am willing to trust that p
On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:07:02 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm concerned about proposal E. I believe it essentialy means that
> any changes that are made to the DFSG or SC won't have any effect if
> they make them more strict, but they will have effect if they relax
> them. Is
I'm concerned about proposal E. I believe it essentialy means that any changes
that are made to the DFSG or SC won't have any effect if they make them more
strict, but they will have effect if they relax them. Is that the intended in
"[..] for a limited time, Debian will not be compliant with the
6 matches
Mail list logo
