On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
I am quite concerned you still did not get past that.
social_contract.1.1 has been voted upon
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 1. I'm utterly frustrated with your ways. The mail on d-d-a could not
> > have any other answer that "please release etch in time", that's
> > something a perfect moron could have predicted without a doubt.
>
> 26% of the people on the forums said supporting hard
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> > work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
> > a delay. If the answer is "no", then I see no r
Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
ARGS. This is certainly one of the worst GR proposals I've seen.
Not seconded, of course.
I believe it woul
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:11:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (e) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall:
> > i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding
> >of the technical and legal issues that
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, ajt wrote:
Thanks Aj, that's the best GR proposed so far.
I second the proposal below.
Cheers,
Moritz
>
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.or
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
>> not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even
>> an idea that the majority of developers agree with,
Then do as Th
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
>> by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
>
> You might like to consider replying to:
>
> Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthor
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:11:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
> > do about firmware are currently:
> These polls are USELESS.
> They all show that people want to release Etch quickly
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
> do about firmware are currently:
These polls are USELESS.
They all show that people want to release Etch quickly. This can be done
either by shipping stuff in violation of the SC, or
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said
>> to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the
>> release for violating the DFSG, an
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Now we have it flat out: Steve thinks perhaps we will simply never
> > bring the kernel packages into compliance with the DFSG.
>
> I demand that you retract this slanderous r
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> One of the people hinting at this has been Steve, who basically said
> to me recently that for some packages, they would get booted from the
> release for violating the DFSG, and for other packages, we just wink
> and nod.
> N
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
> > not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even an
> > idea that the major
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 07:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to
> > > the the development of "technical measures" that will allow firmware to be
> > > separa
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Who is confident of this, and why? I'm not confident of this at all; I'm
> not sure that the idea of forcing sourceless firmware out of main is even an
> idea that the majority of developers agree with, and Joey Hess has pointed
> out to us reasons why
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > firmware that's not tied to etch's release; Joss's is temporary, tied to
> > the the development of "technical measures" that will allow firmware to be
> > separated; Don's isn't an exception at all, and won't allow us to release
> >
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-07 13:35]:
> There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
> firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
> install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-fre
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:30:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
> >> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
> >> t
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:19:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
> > users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
>
> There is an absolute ranking in
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
>> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
>> translate to an emergency on my or D
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
> translate to an emergency on my or Debian's part.
The failure to do this is no more
On 9/6/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just your opinion, not a fact.
--
ciao,
Marco
signatu
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:18:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> >> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> >> work or not. Are they?
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:38:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
> > > * drivers/scs
Sven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2100_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2200_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2300_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2322_fw.c
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
>
> Are those
On 9/6/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suggesting the reverse would be a massive change of course for Debian
as a whole.
Would this massive change of course be a "suggestion"?
Or would it be something that actually exists?
If it's a suggestion, I'm not sure your assertion i
Anthony Towns writes:
> As best I can see, our users expect us to release etch soon rather than
> either of the approaches to fixing that that have been mooted so far
> (drop drivers or delay etch), and I don't believe we can fairly say
> we're putting the needs of our users (or free software) fi
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As usual you forget that we also have that other commitment to our
> users, and that we used to pride ourselves in providing the best free OS.
There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
100% free software, and *second* we do w
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
>> work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
>> a delay. If the answer is "n
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:25:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> > > >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> > > >hard to follow tha
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
> > logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
> > the license of documents like the Debian Manifest
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ warning: quote attribution missing ]
> >> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
> >> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
> >> didn't quote were in the proposal.
> >What d
> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[more files and...]
> > * drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/ql2400_fw.c
>
> Are those not those which have gone in the firmware-nonfree or whatever
> package which was uploaded yesterday to non-free ?
Possibly. That list was dated "August 31, 2006".
Thanks,
--
MJR
On Sep 06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> > >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> > >hard to follow that change.
> > We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admit
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:45:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> >hard to follow that change.
> We followed the SC pretty
* Anthony Towns [2006-09-05 09:49]:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
>
> (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be
> presumed on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
>Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
>hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
the change was not appropriate
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:35:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
>
> That's not entirely true, according to
> http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
>
> Relative to sarge, 13
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Don't forget that sarge also has these firmwares.
That's not entirely true, according to
http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html :-
Relative to sarge, 13 new sourceless-firmware-contaminated files have
found their way int
On 10768 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
All that sounds for me pretty much like
"Oh well, its hard to fit our own goals, so lets ch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
>> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
>> didn't quote were in the proposal.
>What do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
>kernel free software?
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
> a delay. If the answer is "no", then I see no reason that a delay
> will change
I voted against the SC change back in 2004, and I haven't changed my
mind. I second the proposal quoted below.
>
> The Debian Project resolves that:
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
> (b) The
Anthony Towns writes:
> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
> didn't quote were in the proposal.
What do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
kernel free software?
We j
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation. It
> wasn't easy and we couldn't make it in time for sarge, but we can make
> it in time for etch. For etch, we
Anthony Towns writes:
> We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own
> logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing
> the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian
> Constitution.
What? Are you declaring now that we will
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to re
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what "this problem" is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Heh, a FAQ on a website overriding the clear and explicit wording from the
> license itself ("Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")? Who
> would've thought...
What the FSF means by verbatim
Anthony Towns wrote
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> > by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
> You might like to consider replying to:
> Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Op
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:49:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed, but the fact that "delay until sarge release" won by a large
> > majority,
> > shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
>
> In my opinion, it shows
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:18:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> > 100% free. [...]
> Please not that old myth!
> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
> You can use the GPL terms (possibl
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:52:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Indeed, but the fact that "delay until sarge release" won by a large majority,
> shows that our DDs did indeed reaffirm the new SC,
In my opinion, it shows that at the time that was the best option on
the table. One option that wasn't
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:53:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> There are people interested. I think us mere mortals have been hindered
> by the slowness of the DPL and SPI on these topics.
You might like to consider replying to:
Subject: Re: Presumably-unauthorized Open Logo use
Date: Sat,
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >> Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
> >> Option 1 Release etch on time
> >> Option 3 Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
> >> Option 2 Do not sh
Anthony Towns wrote:
> While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> 100% free. [...]
Please not that old myth!
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your lic
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Towns
>> Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
>> prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
>> Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
>> Delay the release of etch (so that we can support
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> So instead of trying ot change the way some developers and users think,
> we'd rather change our foundation documents?
Changing our foundation documents is a way of changing what developers
and users think. At the moment we claim on
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There's two steps:
> > (1) we're not going to meet the social contract for etch
> > (2) having repeatedly failed to meet the new social contract over
> > an extended period, we should reconside
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
> according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
> while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
The current situation appears to be that we end
Anthony Towns
> Since it appears Debian has to make a choice, which would you=20
> prefer we do for etch? (197 votes) [1]
> Allow sourceless firmware in main 63%
> Delay the release of etch (so that we can support18%
> loading firmware from no
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:53:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
> > > didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
> > > following the co
Anthony Towns wrote:
> There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely "delay
> the SC change until Sept 1st 2004", "delay the SC change until sarge
> releases", "apologise", "revert to SC 1.0", "create a transition guide
> for the SC and DFSG", "reaffirm the new SC".
>
> The last
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, a project like Debian is never ready, and never perfect.
> Everybody knows that we are not meeting the freedom goals in the SC to
> 100% (as well as other goals)[1]. But I do not see this as a failure,
> rather as a challenge. So why not t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
>> > social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
>> > reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:26:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> > of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
>
> Removing non-fre
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Following the social contract change, we have been able to remove most
> of non-free stuff from the distribution, especially documentation.
Removing non-free documentation had been a planned release goal
for etch since August 200
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
>> the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
>> large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocriti
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract
> > didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately
> > following the constitutional amendment to allow voting on non-free
> > removal, the non
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:14:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
> > Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
> > concerns with respect to those poll
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 08:04:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you consider our ideals to be the original social contract, applied
> to programs not images and firmware, we've been meeting and improving
> upon our ideals every year and every release.
The reason why your proposal is fundamenta
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a ??crit :
> Those polls should never ever drive our choices. I've raised my
> concerns with respect to those polls on -devel, and even asked you as
> the DPL directly[1], mail that you
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
> the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
> large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
Consider comments like
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
> > social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
> > reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
> > like
Le mar 5 septembre 2006 09:44, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority
> of the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly
> consistent both with each other, and what's been discussed so far on
> this list.
Those polls should neve
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority of
>> the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly consistent both
>> with each other, and what's been discus
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been a week, and the results from the three polls concerning what to
> do about firmware are currently:
>
> What is the most important for the release of Etch? (202 votes) [0]
> Release on time (early de
Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 17:44 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
>
> (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be
> presumed only to cover
80 matches
Mail list logo
