Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > > > mathematically

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in > > > non-free? > > It benefits some of our users. > We've been here before. Distributing binaries

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > > > mathematically

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in > > > non-free? > > It benefits some of our users. > We've been here before. Distributing binaries

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > > would be much more compelling

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in > > > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours. > > > > I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who), > > in

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think. > > It might be how *you* think;

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > > would be much more compelling

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in > > non-free? > > It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in > > > the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours. > > > > I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who), > > in

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think. > > It might be how *you* think;

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in > > non-free? > > It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de > > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de > > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing > > the de iure requirements of the SC relat

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de > > iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing > > the de iure requirements of the SC relat

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > > requireme

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing > that the licenses of this docu

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't > even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this > - so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful. I'm not sure why anyone wh

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > > requireme

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing > that the licenses of this docu

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't > even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this > - so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful. I'm not sure why anyone wh

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> >>> On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- > >>> that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about > >>> our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > >> Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > requirements of the DFSG is simply false. > > > At present it's not a requirement

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> >>> On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- > >>> that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about > >>> our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > >> Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > requirements of the DFSG is simply false. > > > At present it's not a requirement

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a > choic

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 + Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been so

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote > here. I hadn't looked at that. Thanks, -- Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > It's my observation that a numbe

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the soft

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a > choic

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 + Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been some

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote > here. I hadn't looked at that. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package i

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > It's my observation that a numbe

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the soft

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: > > It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- > > requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't > > seem to have any justification on Debian's part. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem yo

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Last I checked, rar

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several sharew

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: > > It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- > > requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't > > seem to have any justification on Debian's part. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Last I checked, rar

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, > > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't > > > > > be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 200

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to > > I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to sati

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, > > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't > > > > > be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 200

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to > > I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to sati

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:44:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > > For practical purposes

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's an extremel

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:44:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > > For practical purposes

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's an extremel

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms > > > for at least some of our users. > > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client > > enhances anyone's freedom in any way. > I gues

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > All the software in main. > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the c

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" > means "nothing changes" a

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms > > > for at least some of our users. > > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client > > enhances anyone's freedom in any way. > I gues

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" > means "nothing changes" a

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > All the software in main. > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the c

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

> > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > >

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to > > > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, > > > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false. > > > Here you have impl

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > > subject line. > > > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > > > wrong". This w

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFD

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

> > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > >

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves > > examples. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised > developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying > to

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to > > > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, > > > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false. > > > Here you have impl

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > subject line. > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Huh? We d

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > > subject line. > > > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > > > wrong". This w

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > > It's my observation that a numb

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFD

Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > > [ ] Drop non-free

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > subject line. > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > wrong". This was "Here is documented evide

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free > > > software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy > > > guideline #3. > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > > of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirem

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves > > examples. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised > developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying > to

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the subject line. Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're wrong". This was "Here is documented evidence of you lying". On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > [ ] Drop non-free > > [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software > >

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > subject line. > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Huh? We d

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > > of the DFSG. > All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > > It's my observation that a numb

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > practices. Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware afaik

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free > > software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy > > guideline #3. > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the req

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Anthony

Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

> > > > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > > > > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > > > > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and > > > > the constitution. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andre

Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > > [ ] Drop non-free

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > subject line. > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > wrong". This was "Here is documented evide

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > [ ] Drop non-free > [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software > < > Keep non-free as is (unproposed) Before anybody gets a brig

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free > > > software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy > > > guideline #3. > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > > of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirem

  1   2   >