Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
> >long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> >themselves not happy with the compromise.
> >
> This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
> thi
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
> >long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> >themselves not happy with the compromise.
> >
> This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
> thi
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is ve
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
> for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
> be DFSG-free. I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
> no
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
>> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
>> wrong or right.
>
> Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:42:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony also said that it's more important to have documentation in Debian
> for important programs, under whatever license, than that the documenation
> be DFSG-free. I suppose this is consistent with his curious views about
> no
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
>> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
>> wrong or right.
>
> Except that part of the problem is your personal d
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
> packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))
I'm on the GNU Latin translation team. I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of dis
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
> > > spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
> > > separate apt-get repositories. T
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
> > spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
> > separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > way to manage bug reports.
>
> Yeah, b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> > ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> > time going in maintaining the supp
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> this a fiction, and a non-efficient one
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > > wouldn't be complaining so
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, you could provide a latin translation for the debian
> packages, or more specifically the debian-installer :))
I'm on the GNU Latin translation team. I don't think we've ever
seriously done anything though, except brief flurries of dis
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:19:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
> > > spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
> > > separate apt-get repositories. T
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
> > spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
> > separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a help, but not the only
> > way to manage bug reports.
>
> Yeah, b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:31:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> > ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> > time going in maintaining the supp
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> this a fiction, and a non-efficient one
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > > wouldn't be complaining so
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > wouldn't be complaining so much.
>
> Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> w
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> > non-free is not part of the debian di
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My goal is not cosmetic, it is to have Debian not support non-free as
> > a part of the Debian project. If that were merely cosmetic, then you
> > wouldn't be complaining so much.
>
> Well, the aim you want to achieve is cosmetic, or fictitious, or
> w
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:45:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> > section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> > non-free is not part of the debian di
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> debian/main.
But you have also referred t
Anthony Towns writes:
> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
> wrong or right.
Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
the current compromise in the social con
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> non-free is part of the debian infrastructure, since we promised in
> section 5 that we would distribute it from the debian ftp servers.
> non-free is not part of the debian distribution though, otherwise called
> debian/main.
But you have also referred t
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
> I'm not interested in having a debate focussed on whether I'm personally
> wrong or right.
Except that part of the problem is your personal decision to rescind
the current compromis
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
>
> This disregards the curren
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
>
> This disregards the curren
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed o
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed o
32 matches
Mail list logo
