Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy i
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is y
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a licens
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> > whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> > because they have no in
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then th
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
> > to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
> > "USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:55:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> > whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> > because they have no in
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:43:53AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> in short it was a comment on the fact that most users really do not care
> whether they are allowed to distribute modified versions or not,
> because they have no intention of ever redistributing it.
Unless they have friends, then th
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
> > to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
> > "USERIGHT". what you do with your own legally-obtained copy is your own
>
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
> >the end-user, however,
> Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
> modify wor
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
> >the end-user, however,
> Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
> modify wor
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions ca
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
>> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users'
>> ability to choose
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:22:03 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
>> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users'
>> ability to choose
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > > whole project, if you tak
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> > modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> > non-free package to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
>
> Sure. If you are concerned by other pack
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > > whole project, if you tak
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> > modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> > non-free package to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
>
> Sure. If you are concerned by other pack
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > > irrelevant.
> >
> > Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> > arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
> >
> > So this is not really a concern.
>
> I
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free
> anymore. Do yo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > irrelevant.
>
> Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
> fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
>
> So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole pro
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > > irrelevant.
> >
> > Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> > arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
> >
> > So this is not really a concern.
>
> I
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in no
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in n
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> > long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> > it was the only r
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free
> anymore. Do yo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > irrelevant.
>
> Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
> fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
>
> So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole pro
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in no
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
> > > utility too. They just need to add a "send-to" header to the
> > > control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
> >
> > A, nice, this would be fine for th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in n
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> > long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> > it was the only r
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
> > > utility too. They just need to add a "send-to" header to the
> > > control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
> >
> > A, nice, this would be fine for th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the wo
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please provide examples.
> > We're still missing those examples, please John.
> Those examples are t
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
> >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >>>[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> >>>a package into non-free has, in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the wo
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please provide examples.
> > We're still missing those examples, please John.
> Those examples are t
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
> >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >>>[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> >>>a package int
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
>
> I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
> you should spot them.
>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
>
> I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
> you should spot them.
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
> >
> > Ah, co
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
>
> Ah, come on craig.
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
> >
> > Ah, co
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:20:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> > something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
>
> Ah, come on craig.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...]
Dear PedantBot 2004,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly te
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:12PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
> something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
Ah, come on craig. A bit of humor is fine during low traffic periods,
but you did make a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:23:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...]
Dear PedantBot 2004,
Please stop wasting my time...but feel free to come back when you have
something other than quibbles about word definitions to talk about.
craig
ps: nice upgrade. there are a few excruciatingly te
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
> complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
Un
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> One thing that all of the advocates for dumping non-free have in common is a
> complete disregard for the actual contents of non-free.
This statement is without foundation, and probably unfalsifiable (as you
are not telepathic).
Un
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
> > > moderate the incentiv
> > Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed
> > by the social contract.
> >
> > If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to
> > distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private
> > at a higher level of priority than n
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If the committee currently working
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
> this debate than you are.
I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are
always false in every non-trivial scenario.
I have never heard of
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
> > > moderate the incentiv
> > Note that debian-private also does not meet DFSG, and is not guaranteed
> > by the social contract.
> >
> > If the only point here is that debian resources shouldn't be used to
> > distribute non-DFSG stuff we should place getting rid of debian-private
> > at a higher level of priority than n
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:02:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If the committee currently working
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:46:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Frankly, at this point, he is coming out in a better light in
> this debate than you are.
I can categorically tell you that all forms of this statement are
always false in every non-trivial scenario.
I have never heard of
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
> > moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense
> > their software under
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Providing a distribution platform for non-free software seems to greatly
> > moderate the incentive the non-free authors would have to relicense
> > their software under
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability
> to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no
> (statistically si
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:51:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users'
> freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability
> to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no
> (statistically si
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can
> > > be
> > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
> > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
> >
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
>> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
>> > of our s
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can be
> > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me.
> > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the
> > get-rid
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:50:12 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
>> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests
>> > of our s
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does
not resolve it, then yes.
Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free,
they
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
> propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
> I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to wr
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
> not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
> you don't wish to advocate?
>
> Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
> > our stated goals, users and free software.
>
> I beg to differ. Indeed, the ver
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
>
> I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
> for myself after poking around a bit:
>
> What is the ratio
> > Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
> > is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
> > above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I shou
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
> > a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
> > current situation an
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am not presently drafting any new proposal, nor do I have any plans to
> propose anything.
Ok. When you referenced a proposal, with seconds, I thought
something different.
> I just thought it would be handy when you asked me to wr
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:38:13PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If I understand you correctly [and there's a very good chance that I do
> not understand you correctly], you are advocating ideas from a proposal
> you don't wish to advocate?
>
> Or maybe you are in the process of proposing something
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> > presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interests of
> > our stated goals, users and free software.
>
> I beg to differ. Indeed, the ver
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
>
> I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
> for myself after poking around a bit:
>
> What is the ratio
> > Well, except John Goerzen has suggested that the proposal he is discussing
> > is the one he proposed three years ago. [Which was the context of my
> > above paragraph.]
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:30:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest that. You had told me that I shou
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:31:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world has changed quite
> > a bit since then and I think it makes more sense to re-evaluate the
> > current situation an
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> > should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> > our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michae
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000, wh
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> > should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> > our voting system can deal with them.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Michae
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ok, I now understand what point you're arguing. I suppose somebody
> should formally repropose all those proposals from back then, now that
> our voting system can deal with them.
I don't think this helps much. The Free Software world
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:16:56AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
I do have some questions, which I've not been able to answer
for myself after poking around a bit:
What is the rationale for this proposal?
I've read what you had to say in the year 2000, wh
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
