On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't dec
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't dec
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > >
> > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> > > build into their devices?
> >
> > Of course they do, b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
>
> > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> >
> > Do you really think that hardware manufact
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > >
> > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> > > build into their devices?
> >
> > Of course they do, b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
>
> > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> >
> > Do you really think that hardware manufact
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
>
> > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> >
> > Do you really think that hardware manufact
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
>
> > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> >
> > Do you really think that hardware manufact
#include
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
> >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> >they produce everything built in their devices?
>
> Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> build into their devices?
Of course they do,
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
#include
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into th
#include
* MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
> >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> >they produce everything built in their devices?
>
> Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> build into their devices?
Of course they do,
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
#include
hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
they produce everything built in their devices?
Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
build into their dev
#include
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
> Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
> or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
> their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
> our ftp archive to those wh
#include
* MJ Ray [Wed, Feb 25 2004, 09:58:55PM]:
> Some hardware manufacturers do help to produce free software drivers,
> or even publish them themselves. We give them the carrot of letting
> their drivers into main. Why should we give the carrot of inclusion on
> our ftp archive to those wh
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
> >"who judges" is a trivially easy quest
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:33:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 03:57:55 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:17:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it?
> >"who judges" is a trivially easy quest
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:29:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> > if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> > packages to it, but
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 12:40]:
> And the fact whether people think it is worth the effort to
> differentiate between ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free and
> ftp.non-free.org should be left to the person voting. It is highly
> subjective and will *never* be solved by discussio
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sounds like a henn-and-egg problem to me:
> 1. as long as non-fre is distributed through debian.org nobody
> will build nonfree.org.
> 2. as long as nonfree.org isn't functional, debian.org cannot
> (should not?) stop distr
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> >
> > ==
> > Acknowledging that some of our use
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
> guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
> objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
> debian/non-free though, includi
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:42:04PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, like said, if there is a viable non-free, with all the
> guarantees that it will stay and be well maintained, i will have no
> objections in using it. It should provide equivalent functionality to
> debian/non-free though, includi
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:00:36PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
> >
> > ==
> > Acknowledging that some of our use
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sounds like a henn-and-egg problem to me:
> 1. as long as non-fre is distributed through debian.org nobody
> will build nonfree.org.
> 2. as long as nonfree.org isn't functional, debian.org cannot
> (should not?) stop distr
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 12:40]:
> And the fact whether people think it is worth the effort to
> differentiate between ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free and
> ftp.non-free.org should be left to the person voting. It is highly
> subjective and will *never* be solved by discussio
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:29:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> > if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> > packages to it, but
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was trying to see what's needed and how to do it for non-free.org and
> have a discussion about this on this list a while ago, but the response
> was anything but enthusiastic. Seems the 'keep non-free' people don't
> want to talk a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> packages to it, but i will not use my time and energy to make it happen,
> as i have less
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > > We cannot includ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
>
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:25:14AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, in this case, the proposal should say something like: "The
> non-free software that was distributed via Debians archive is now
> moved to ..., and the clause 5 of the SC is dropped."
Andrew made it quite clear that he thinks
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 11:10]:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> > happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> > structure is up, and works in an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> structure is up, and works in an acceptable way, then i would see no
> opposition to move non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:19:17AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> > Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> > software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but i
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops dis
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the dif
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not that we don't want it to happen, by all way, implement it, and
> if it fullfills all its promise, i would be glad to move my non-free
> packages to it, but i will not use my time and energy to make it happen,
> as i have less
Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > > We cannot includ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-l
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
>
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:25:14AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> However, in this case, the proposal should say something like: "The
> non-free software that was distributed via Debians archive is now
> moved to ..., and the clause 5 of the SC is dropped."
Andrew made it quite clear that he thinks
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from rep
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 11:10]:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> > happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> > structure is up, and works in an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non-free.org. I would be
> happy to be proven the contrary though, and once such an alternative
> structure is up, and works in an acceptable way, then i would see no
> opposition to move non
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:19:17AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> > Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> > software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but i
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:23AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > stops dis
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
> case, they are beginning to "see the light".
I'm very glad
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > > the dif
Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line.
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
What do we gain from rep
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
> case, they are beginning to "see the light".
I'm very glad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:58:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> First you claim that they cannot produce free software drivers (free
> software is what we require, more than just open source) and then you
> claim that they will produce free software drivers. Clearly, they can
> produce devices with fr
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
"go". In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not
[Please excuse the top post/reply, I just recently subscribed to -vote]
I agree in principal that not having non-free software is the best-case
scenario, but that time is clearly not now. The Nvidia drivers provide
a most important example.
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vend
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:58:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> First you claim that they cannot produce free software drivers (free
> software is what we require, more than just open source) and then you
> claim that they will produce free software drivers. Clearly, they can
> produce devices with fr
On 2004-02-25 21:23:48 + Matt Pavlovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case of video drivers, there is a lot of proprietary
intellectual
property that is built into the software driver to make the thing
"go". In
many instances, it is licensed from a third party, so the vendor
could not o
[Please excuse the top post/reply, I just recently subscribed to -vote]
I agree in principal that not having non-free software is the best-case
scenario, but that time is clearly not now. The Nvidia drivers provide
a most important example.
I have personally negotiated with several hardware vend
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include "using development tools provided by the
project").
I think
> > My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
> > mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
> it as a reply to my comment about t
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment abo
On 2004-02-25 19:12:26 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I read this statement, you're not restricting it to only
certain
classes of use -- you're saying that any use must fit this restriction
(so it could include "using development tools provided by the
project").
I think tha
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already
> > My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
> > mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
> it as a reply to my comment about t
On 2004-02-25 17:14:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question had nothing to do with the project -- notice that I don't
mention the debian project anywhere in the question.
If your statement had nothing to do with the project, why did you give
it as a reply to my comment about t
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
> >list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
> >But then, if you can
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
> >> unambiguous
> >> in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating
> >> system".
> > But forgetting what
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:33:57AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
> >list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
> >But then, if you can
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of softwa
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
>
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already not "DFSG-
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:33, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think it makes it even more important that we are clear and
> >> unambiguous
> >> in the message: "non-free is not part of the Debian operating
> >> system".
> > But forgetting what
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not wor
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you measure "increased demand"?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that "In the future,
we
On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely
DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables.
Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I
don't know any definition of software t
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 22:11, MJ Ray wrote:
> > However, if any software had that as a condition of distribution, that
> > software could only be distributed in non-free.
>
> As you have pointed out before, the project and the distribution are
> different. I think the project is already not "DFSG-
On 2004-02-24 17:11:09 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are stuborn, are you not ? Please read the mail archive of this
list, i have often stated my experience with the ocaml package there.
But then, if you cannot be bothered to read it, i think your opinion
on
this is not worth
On 2004-02-24 19:01:06 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you measure "increased demand"?
You cannot measure it directly, but you can measure its effects as you
say, through observing user requests.
Yes, that's not direct, but nor is the hypothesis that "In the future,
we can p
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
> > What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
> alternative.
How do you measure "increased demand"?
Is demand "one person demanding", or demand it somehow related to the
number
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Deb
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating "lack of
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:08:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Err, my anecdotes are first hand experience. So, i think it is rather
> >more than vague sentiments.
>
> Please publish the comparative analysis of the magic non-free
> > What encouragement are you talking about?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:17:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
> alternative.
How do you measure "increased demand"?
Is demand "one person demanding", or demand it somehow related to the
number
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:23:51PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I consider this proposed position statement poorly justified, for the
> reasons that follow.
I'm not going to address everything, but I'd like to point out at least
a few issues.
> On 2004-02-21 15:48:48 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]:
> You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
> not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
> itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
> seems good to have a final
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the
On 2004-02-24 16:50:16 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think such encouragement/assistance is consistent with Debian's
stated goals.
What encouragement are you talking about?
The encouragement resulting from increased demand for a free
alternative.
Are you equating "lack of suppor
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:56:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded
> >anyway,
> >and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
> >that was te
On 2004-02-24 15:08:20 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, but i think it is not a health problem, not a dissease, at
worst a
mild disconfort. I guess it is not even noticeable.
Discomfort can be a health problem. I don't think I called it a
disease.
Err, my anecdotes are
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
