On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:58:30AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> >
> > So, why confuse the issue ?
> >
> > What's so difficult about it ?
>
> Just two things:
> - who is John?
> - please stop CCing me when I sa
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:58:30AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> >
> > So, why confuse the issue ?
> >
> > What's so difficult about it ?
>
> Just two things:
> - who is John?
> - please stop CCing me when I s
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:27:46PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
>
> So, why confuse the issue ?
>
> What's so difficult about it ?
Just two things:
- who
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> > If you continue
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:27:46PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
>
> So, why confuse the issue ?
>
> What's so difficult about it ?
Just two things:
- wh
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> > If you continu
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> a tech ctte chair who's openly against the
> proposal to the point of trying to undermine it actively before it gets
> voted on
There's no evidence of that. Conspiracy theories are a bit childish.
Hamish
--
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:40:52PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> a tech ctte chair who's openly against the
> proposal to the point of trying to undermine it actively before it gets
> voted on
There's no evidence of that. Conspiracy theories are a bit childish.
Hamish
-
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 01:53:34AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > a growing movement within
> > > I do believe that movement exists and has always existed to some
> > > degree
> > > They are the people
> I believe it feels that way because it's true. And I believe we should
> resist that.
>
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 01:53:34AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > a growing movement within
> > > I do believe that movement exists and has always existed to some
> > > degree
> > > They are the people
> I believe it feels that way because it's true. And I believe we should
> resist that.
he wrote carefully.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:41:08 +0200",
with "Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure",
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
luther> > > I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it
ote carefully.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:41:08 +0200",
with "Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure",
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
luther> > > I myself maintain the ocaml package, developped at french INRIA. it was
luth
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 12:22:37AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Seth Arnold wrote:
> > But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
> > without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
> > is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
>
> Konquerer w
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 12:22:37AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Seth Arnold wrote:
> > But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
> > without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
> > is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
>
> Konquerer
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 03:11:11PM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> > against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
> > existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
> > and
Seth Arnold wrote:
> But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
> without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
> is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
> So, while I love free software, I don't think killing non
Seth Arnold wrote:
> But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
> without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
> is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
> So, while I love free software, I don't think killing no
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 03:11:11PM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> > John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> > against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
> > existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
> > and
* Peter Eckersley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001028 21:09]:
> You are confusing *pragmatic* support for an ideological
> position with not supporting that position at all...
Ok, I promise this is the last anyone will hear from me on the whole
issue.
I *love* free software. I love that I can run apt-get
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
> existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
> and new people care less and le
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian
> and non-f
* Peter Eckersley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001028 21:09]:
> You are confusing *pragmatic* support for an ideological
> position with not supporting that position at all...
Ok, I promise this is the last anyone will hear from me on the whole
issue.
I *love* free software. I love that I can run apt-ge
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
> against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
> existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
> and new people care less and l
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian
> and non-
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:50:48PM +, Max Moritz Sievers wrote:
> http://privacy.net/anonymizer/ says that Konqueror applys as "Mozilla/5.0
> (compatible; Konqueror/2.0; X11)". I think this guarantees compatibility
> with Mozilla.
You can customize it as you like, modifying preferences.
by
On Thursday 26 October 2000 19:17, Matthias Kabel wrote:
> * Max Moritz Sievers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001012 18:22]:
> > Konqueror is the best browser I have tested. You can use it with
> > KHTML or with Gecko (the Mozilla rendering engine). KMail has
> > everthing I need and KNode is also quite use
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:50:48PM +, Max Moritz Sievers wrote:
> http://privacy.net/anonymizer/ says that Konqueror applys as "Mozilla/5.0
> (compatible; Konqueror/2.0; X11)". I think this guarantees compatibility
> with Mozilla.
You can customize it as you like, modifying preferences.
b
On Thursday 26 October 2000 19:17, Matthias Kabel wrote:
> * Max Moritz Sievers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001012 18:22]:
> > Konqueror is the best browser I have tested. You can use it with
> > KHTML or with Gecko (the Mozilla rendering engine). KMail has
> > everthing I need and KNode is also quite us
* Max Moritz Sievers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001012 18:22]:
> On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > > konqueror could very well be good enough to replace
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:06:51 +0200,
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:26:31AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > depend on it go into contrib. but what if the
* Max Moritz Sievers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001012 18:22]:
> On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > > konqueror could very well be good enough to replac
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:06:51 +0200,
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:26:31AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > depend on it go into contrib. but what if the
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:32:23 -0500,
"Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, but I would say the opportunity for free distribution is a big
> incentive. If we distribute questionably licensed software then we are
> removing any motivation for them to
I posted something to this thread (on a mailing list to which I'm
subscribed) a number of weeks ago. Could you please stop CCing me on
every message? It's annoying enough when you've just posted.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardi
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:32:23 -0500,
"Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, but I would say the opportunity for free distribution is a big
> incentive. If we distribute questionably licensed software then we are
> removing any motivation for them t
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:26:31AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
> > non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
> > differ
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
> non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
> differently by every user. I don't know what this can make to bug reports.
No package c
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> If you continue like th
I posted something to this thread (on a mailing list to which I'm
subscribed) a number of weeks ago. Could you please stop CCing me on
every message? It's annoying enough when you've just posted.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tard
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian
and non-free...
> I mysel
* Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001026 01:49]:
> There is even a package which i packaged and use personnaly, the author gave
> its ok to it, but was rejected (even in non-free) due to obscure wording in
> the licence. The author don't respond anymore to my mails, so i let it be.
One thing to k
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:26:31AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
> > non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
> > diffe
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 02:32:23PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Well, ...
> >
> > ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute
> > netscape
> > or other such commercial software.
> >
> > What about so
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> depend on it go into contrib. but what if the packages is not even in
> non-free, you will have a package depending on a package that is compiled
> differently by every user. I don't know what this can make to bug reports.
No package
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:08:03AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> > groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
> If you continue like t
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> You miss my point, i am not speaking about big companies but about smaller
> groups, individuals or research institues or other such.
If you continue like this, I think you make me change my mind about debian
and non-free...
> I myse
* Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001026 01:49]:
> There is even a package which i packaged and use personnaly, the author gave
> its ok to it, but was rejected (even in non-free) due to obscure wording in
> the licence. The author don't respond anymore to my mails, so i let it be.
One thing to
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 02:32:23PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Well, ...
> >
> > ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> > or other such commercial software.
> >
> > What about softwa
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, ...
>
> ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> or other such commercial software.
>
> What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
> DFSG ?
>
> This is t
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Well, ...
>
> ok i understand this, What you don't want is for debian to distribute netscape
> or other such commercial software.
>
> What about software that is almost free, but is not free in the sense of the
> DFSG ?
>
> This is
Sorry for not repsonidng earlier, but my disk crashed, and i had a hard time
reading/writting mail until it was fixed.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:03:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think i agree with you in principle, but w
Sorry for not repsonidng earlier, but my disk crashed, and i had a hard time
reading/writting mail until it was fixed.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:03:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think i agree with you in principle, but
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:26:11PM +0200, Jens M?ller wrote:
> > The first (first, mind you) promise that the Social Contract
> > makes is that the Debian distribution will not contain free software.
> (sic!)
HA! Whoops. Uh, "non-free", obviously.
--
_
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:26:11PM +0200, Jens M?ller wrote:
> > The first (first, mind you) promise that the Social Contract
> > makes is that the Debian distribution will not contain free software.
> (sic!)
HA! Whoops. Uh, "non-free", obviously.
--
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
The point at issue here is not "disks" per se, but rather the act of
_distribution_. The first (f
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
The point at issue here is not "disks" per se, but rather the act of
_distribution_. The first (
Can you please tell me about the time when non-free is
the part of the Debian distribution ?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12 Oct 2000 10:43:14 -0500,
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Debian distribution does not now contain non-free software.
When did the Debian distribution contain
Can you please tell me about the time when non-free is
the part of the Debian distribution ?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12 Oct 2000 10:43:14 -0500,
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Debian distribution does not now contain non-free software.
When did the Debian distribution contai
Any chance replies could be sent only to debian-vote? One copy is
already enough for me... :)
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001014 20:16]:
> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Clearly disks owned by Debian are Debian disks. A small proportion of
> > their space is take
Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clearly disks owned by Debian are Debian disks. A small proportion of
> their space is taken up with non-free. Deal.
Indeed we shall! At least, if the GR passes, we will.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
> > >
> > > I would count the Official Debian disks.
> >
> > Official Debian hard drive
Any chance replies could be sent only to debian-vote? One copy is
already enough for me... :)
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001014 20:16]:
> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Clearly disks owned by Debian are Debian disks. A small proportion of
> > their space is tak
Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clearly disks owned by Debian are Debian disks. A small proportion of
> their space is taken up with non-free. Deal.
Indeed we shall! At least, if the GR passes, we will.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
> >
> > I would count the Official Debian disks.
>
> Official Debian hard drives that carry the FTP archive?
Well, as always, I fal
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
> > >
> > > I would count the Official Debian disks.
> >
> > Official Debian hard driv
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
> >
> > I would count the Official Debian disks.
>
> Official Debian hard drives that carry the FTP archive?
Well, as always, I fa
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:35:38PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The gpg modules I use for Debian - my RSA key has been unofficially
>
> You could create a DSA key.
I do - not everybody does yet.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:35:38PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The gpg modules I use for Debian - my RSA key has been unofficially
>
> You could create a DSA key.
I do - not everybody does yet.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (htt
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
>
> I would count the Official Debian disks.
Official Debian hard drives that carry the FTP archive?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
>
> I would count the Official Debian disks.
Official Debian hard drives that carry the FTP archive?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
I would count the Official Debian disks.
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
I would count the Official Debian disks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:04:53AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with
> > the
> > non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
>
> They are not on the Debian disks now.
Depends on what you think Debian disk
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't make such assumptions when replying to such a valid
> criticism. I maintain some non-free packages because I feel that
> they are needed, and I might not do it if the burden becomes
> excessive (such as having to build an outside home a
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:04:53AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> > non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
>
> They are not on the Debian disks now.
Depends on what you think Debian disks ar
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't make such assumptions when replying to such a valid
> criticism. I maintain some non-free packages because I feel that
> they are needed, and I might not do it if the burden becomes
> excessive (such as having to build an outside home
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> > packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> > repository for people to download. I think not everyone has t
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
They are not on the Debian disks now.
> What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> > packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> > repository for people to download. I think not everyone has
Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?
They are not on the Debian disks now.
> What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:48:12AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:48:12AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary
> has done.
Actually it does.
> Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should
> have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitution
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary
> has done.
Actually it does.
> Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should
> have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitutio
Previously Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I'm fairly sure Wichert posted several months ago that he was opposed
> to Branden's proposal, but I can't seem to find the message locally
> (and can't even remember what list it was on...). The only reason I
> remember it is that his opposition surprised me (gi
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replac
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's the whole point of this proposal. John feels that non-free has
> outlived its usefulness and should be purged now since the vast majority
> of people no longer need it (other than the software they already have
> installed, which wouldn't go away
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
So use an installer packa
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The constituition does not seem to refer to modification of existing
> documents at all (except the constituition itself). There are therefore
> two alternatives:
>
> 1. Modify the constituition to add provision for modifying and revoking
>existing
No offense Seth, but I've heard all these arguments before. I am
getting tired of repeating myself as well.
I AM NOT THE FBI INVADING YOUR LIVING ROOM WITH RM, TRYING TO DELETE
ALL NON-FREE SOFTWARE FROM YOUR COMPUTER.
You can keep and use all the non-free software that you like.
The Debian dis
There is no "sleight of hand" going on here. Issuing a document that
states that "Social Contract version 1 is hereby declared outdated and
replaced by this newer text" accomplishes the exact same thing as
modifying it. I am not claiming that we must destroy all evidence
that there was ever a dif
Previously Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I'm fairly sure Wichert posted several months ago that he was opposed
> to Branden's proposal, but I can't seem to find the message locally
> (and can't even remember what list it was on...). The only reason I
> remember it is that his opposition surprised me (g
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to repla
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
So use an installer pack
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's the whole point of this proposal. John feels that non-free has
> outlived its usefulness and should be purged now since the vast majority
> of people no longer need it (other than the software they already have
> installed, which wouldn't go awa
No offense Seth, but I've heard all these arguments before. I am
getting tired of repeating myself as well.
I AM NOT THE FBI INVADING YOUR LIVING ROOM WITH RM, TRYING TO DELETE
ALL NON-FREE SOFTWARE FROM YOUR COMPUTER.
You can keep and use all the non-free software that you like.
The Debian di
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The constituition does not seem to refer to modification of existing
> documents at all (except the constituition itself). There are therefore
> two alternatives:
>
> 1. Modify the constituition to add provision for modifying and revoking
>existin
There is no "sleight of hand" going on here. Issuing a document that
states that "Social Contract version 1 is hereby declared outdated and
replaced by this newer text" accomplishes the exact same thing as
modifying it. I am not claiming that we must destroy all evidence
that there was ever a di
On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > konqueror could very well be good enough to replace Netscape.
> > (however, I've not tried KDE's news and mail clien
On Thursday 12 October 2000 11:51, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Chester Hosey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is true, but unless you are the most fanatical of GNOME users,
> > konqueror could very well be good enough to replace Netscape.
> > (however, I've not tried KDE's news and mail clie
1 - 100 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
