On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:53:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > > > ] Code in main a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > > ] in the sourc
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
>> >>much
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
>> >>much
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > ] in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
> > ]
> > ] Documentation in main and co
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > ] in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
> > ]
> > ] Documentation in main and co
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:55:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, th
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:55:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, th
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:27:38AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just
> >because they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
> >being silly.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:27:38AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just
> >because they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
> >being silly.
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software
just because
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
being
silly.
For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig.
For o
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software
just because
they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are
being
silly.
For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig.
For one,
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:55:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
> > >decision?
>
> The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
>
> ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs a
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in much
> >>doubt on it
> >where's the G
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:55:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
> > >decision?
>
> The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
>
> ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs a
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in much
> >>doubt on it
> >where's the G
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
> >>much doubt on it
> >where's the GR
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:59:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
> >>much doubt on it
> >where's the GR
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
much
doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
decision?
does
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in
much
doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy
decision?
doesn't
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in much
> doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy decision?
doesn't exist.
in other words, it hasn't been decided yet.
> and it is d
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Even if not "decided" unanimously, the "jury" doesn't seem to be in much
> doubt on it
where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy decision?
doesn't exist.
in other words, it hasn't been decided yet.
> and it is d
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out
over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
as i pointed out in my last mes
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Admittedly, many of the others are due to confusion on the part of
all the examples you've posted so far have been examples of either slackness,
indecision, or stupidity, not deliberate deception as you first claimed.
but that is
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Admittedly, many of the others are due to confusion on the part of
all the examples you've posted so far have been examples of either slackness,
indecision, or stupidity, not deliberate deception as you first claimed.
but that is
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Herbert Xu knows of non-free firmware in the kernel sources and is
> leaving it in main until someone else finds it. That's certainly
> deliberate and active, if not deception.
That's not really accurate. Herbert seems to be leav
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Herbert Xu knows of non-free firmware in the kernel sources and is
> leaving it in main until someone else finds it. That's certainly
> deliberate and active, if not deception.
That's not really accurate. Herbert seems to be leav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|>Craig Sanders wrote:
|>
|>
|>>On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|>>
|>>>This would clarify the main point that has been spawni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|>Craig Sanders wrote:
|>
|>
|>>On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|>>
|>>>This would clarify the main point that has been spawning
* Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040408 05:17]:
> as for RFCs and other documentation, the jury is still out on whether they can
> be included in main. no final decision has been made. you shouldn't pre-empt
> that decision by declaring them to be an attempt to sneak non-free stuff in
> main.
* Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040408 05:17]:
> as for RFCs and other documentation, the jury is still out on whether they can
> be included in main. no final decision has been made. you shouldn't pre-empt
> that decision by declaring them to be an attempt to sneak non-free stuff in
> main.
On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
> >> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff int
On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
> >> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff int
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
>> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
>
> what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>
>> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts
>> by occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
>
> what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:59:09AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
> you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just
> shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion",
>
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by
> occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been any incidents in the
real world
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK, while we're proposing changes
>
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are di
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:59:09AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
> you bigots lost the vote (you didn't even come close) - can't you please just
> shut up and go away? do you really have to try to continue the "discussion",
>
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by
> occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
what "endless attempts" would these be? have there been any incidents in the
real world
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:05:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK, while we're proposing changes
>
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are di
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
>> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
>> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
>> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
>> legal
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal
> reasons). We provide the g
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
>> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
>> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
>> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for
>> legal
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 23:10]:
> How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
> documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
> system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal
> reasons). We provide the g
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes
How
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040326 21:10]:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:15:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> > alternative to Andrews proposal:
> Since ballot alternatives start out life as amendments to the current
> pro
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040326 21:10]:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:15:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> > alternative to Andrews proposal:
> Since ballot alternatives start out life as amendments to the current
> pro
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:15:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
Since ballot alternatives start out life as amendments to the current
proposal, I think it would be helpful if you could provide this as
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:15:09AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
Since ballot alternatives start out life as amendments to the current
proposal, I think it would be helpful if you could provide this as
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
| free software. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if
| a work i
Hi,
I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
alternative to Andrews proposal:
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
| free software. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if
| a work i
54 matches
Mail list logo
