On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, since it is, would people please try to think through what
> they're saying? [For example, if I agreed with Chris's line of thought
> then I'd believe that Debian is brainwashing people by failing to offer
> them all the standard Red Hat software.]
Did you
I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that
the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free
distribution.
Rather than try to delve into the rhetoric, let me simply point out that
nothing prevents us from presenting both options on our web pages.
Likewise,
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 05:42:56PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > i don't really care much one way or the other (i like the swirl with and
> > without the bottle)...i'm only voting because i want this boring issue
> > finished with.
>
> What a stupid reason to vote. Please don't vote if you
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site,
[..]
> would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do
> have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong.
Argubly this is part of what we will b
Raul Miller wrote:
> > If there really were a policy that this shouldn't be on the web site,
> [..]
> > would be using the net to install Debian have net access). So if we do
> > have such a policy (I'm not aware of one), I think it's wrong.
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argubly th
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that
> the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free
> distribution.
I believe the assumption is that this proposal will provide a
precedent and a pretext for such a change. Eventua
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that
> > the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free
> > distribution.
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the assumption is that this proposal will provide a
>
On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote:
> Eh? So we're voting on an issue that's not even going to be on the
> ballot?
No. But this issue (A) does represent a change in our policy toward
non-free software, which moves us closer to position B (purging
references to non-free and contrib). So, do we want to
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> choices. What's the point of people choosing free software if they
> didn't choose it but rather had it forced on them?
>
> People call you a socialist, this is exactly why. Who are you to tell me
Whoa! This is not at all correct. Not even close.
On Jul 03, John Goerzen wrote:
> Note that we do not support non-free software; the Contract explicitly
> acknowledges that it is not a prt of Debian. We merely acknowledge
> that it is possible to use non-free software on Debian ("support its use").
Doublespeak. We provide support infrastructu
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is reasonable for us to seek to project a positive image
> about our project. That doesn't mean being slaves to marketing, but
> we ought to at least be conscious that our actions as a group can
> affect how others perceive the project. To
On 3 Jul 1999, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> The Social Contract says that Debian is 100% Free Software. As it
> stands presently, there is not clear separation in the eyes of users
> between the free and non-free parts of Debian. The maintenance of
> non-free archives and mirrors was a favor to use
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not at all true! [RMS] was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion
> that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they
> were commented out *by default* -- or even commented
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 10:41:49PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > choices. What's the point of people choosing free software if they
> > didn't choose it but rather had it forced on them?
> >
> > People call you a socialist, this is exactly why. Who are you to tell me
>
> Whoa! This is not at
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 04:34:13PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Wichert's proposal would focus more emphasis to this distinction, by
> according it more importance. It will show the users that Debian
> means business about the distinction.
If I cannot find it when I look specifically for it,
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 07:37:54PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> 4. We go out of our way to ensure people never face the choice they
>supposedly have. (Perhaps we bury some obscure config option in
>/etc/apt/sources.list, instead of asking in dinstall or apt's
>postinst "Would you lik
/*
* and this time I'll get Wichert's email address right
*/
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 09:08:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm seeing a variety of objections where people are assuming that
> the debian web pages will not tell people how to access the non-free
> distribution.
Because wichert's
This is an attempt to resolve some ambiguity about this free/nonfree
archive split for debian.
Richard, since you are the fsf representative here, please comment on
the following interpretation of how the split should proceed:
(1) We decide that the free archive needs to not contain references to
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Logo3 Ballot (Don't remove this marker)
[1-3] Choice
---
[ 1 ] FOR logo swap
[ 3 ] AGAINST logo swap
[ 2 ] FURTHER Discussion
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete
19 matches
Mail list logo
