On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:25:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> > 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
> > 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
>
> I think
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
> I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
> being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
> is a waste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
is a waste of time.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Le jeudi 07 juin 2007 à 18:49 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> >If not, stop trolling.
> Accusing people who oppose your views of "trolling" shows lack of
> dialectic skills.
I have a hard finding another word to describe someone calling people
not sharing his views a "revisionist".
--
.''`.
: :
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
> This is not what I claimed.
So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
the reason you still have no examples of DFSG-1-revisionist
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dealt with this in my original message.
So don't let my disagreement provoke a repeat if that causes unhappiness.
> For the record, I'm one of the
> people who doesn't believe this is the case without straining the reading
> of those two points. I thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
This is not what I claimed.
>> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
>Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or mor
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070605 21:09]:
> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle tha
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:40:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various
>> people are still *upset* about the Editorial Changes GR, but at least
>> from where I'm sitting, it did a lot to resolv
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:40:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > - it seems to be pandering to literalists in a similar way to the
> > Editorial Changes GR and that hasn't really ended those arguments;
>
> I disagree strongly with the latter part of that statement. Various
> people are still *up
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
>> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:
> I'd like to see these tests (and others, such as the
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
>> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
>> 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
> I think this is a bad idea becau
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
> >(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
> >quiet when I showed that it look
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I think there is still high controversy over these criteria, which
> appeal mostly the DFSG-revisionsts which a few years ago colonized
> debian-legal. I do not believe that they are currently being used by the
> ftpmasters, who are the people who act
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
>(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
>quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees were DFSG
>breaches before
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I think there is still high controversy over these criteria, which
> appeal mostly the DFSG-revisionsts which a few years ago colonized
> debian-legal. [...]
Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-leg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A good understanding of the effects (ie, providing answers to questions
>like: how common are such clauses? if they don't happen, why complain? if
>they've already happened, how have they caused problems?) seems like a
>good thing to have before making decisions about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I start with those two because they're the least controversial and have
>been part of license analysis for long enough that they're in various FAQs
>and in the Wikipedia article on the DFSG, but neither are explicitly
>stated in the existing guidelines and there's always
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:
I'd like to see these tests (and others, such as the venue-clause)
explained and compared to existing
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, on another note, I didn't cc debian-legal on my original message
> just because if people decided this was a horrible idea, I didn't want to
> waste the time of more than one list, but any GR proposal clearly should
> be cc'd there.
debian-legal cont
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> 10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
> 11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
I think this is a bad idea because:
- it is introducing redundancy into the
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, for the "desert island test" and part of the "dissident
> test", what about a GR with the following two ballot options:
> The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
> 10. No Required Contribution of Chang
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle that we're g
I should say up front that this is quite possibly a horrible idea.
However, it occurred to me last night and I can't find any obvious flaws,
so I thought I'd toss it out and see how people react.
I am *not* proposing a GR yet. I'm more interested to see what people
think about the idea.
One of t
24 matches
Mail list logo
