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 Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
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 Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:44:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> > that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it."
> It's totally inadequate evidence, but ne
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 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> that's evidence that there aren
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
> that's evidence that there aren
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it." The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almos
On 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny
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
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:23:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Uh, no it's not. Eg, "I don't have any bug reports for debootstrap 0.3;
that's evidence that there aren't any bugs in it." The lack of evidence
is due to the fact that (almos
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
> >> not
> >> evidence of absence.
> > Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
> > the word, and what will actually happen.
>
> Not just
> > 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 2004-01-08 15:23:30 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
It's just not conclusive evidence.
I think that may be an irrational view.
Or maybe there really is a little unicorn in your sock drawer.
Not for long. The bunny would
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
On 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested pla
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:37:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I thought I answered, but all together now: absence of evidence is
> >> not
> >> evidence of absence.
> > Word play. I don't care about this, i care about the intentions behind
> > the word, and what will actually happen.
>
> Not just
> > 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 Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
> another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
> (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
> On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PR
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 2004-01-08 13:47:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that we should look over the non-free stuff, and for each
package there decide what has to happen, if it should be removed, if
it
can stay, if it has made progress, etc.
Feel free to comment/adopt my suggested plan. I
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:11:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
> another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
> (such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
Ok.
> On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PR
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
I think most of the previous email is replied to elsewhere (= "in
another subthread" for the hard of thinking), or I don't have answers
(such as plan for contrib), or I agree.
On 2004-01-07 09:10:26 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, sure. The only problem with that [...]
Yep,
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
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
