A few editorial gripes:
> We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> distribute Debian operating system distributions.
Firstly, I'm not sure that "operating system" is a good way to
describe Debian these days.
Secondly, this sentence sounds clumsy due to overuse of "distribut
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to
> read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html
>
> I've used
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free section"
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > Resolution.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned
understanding of the term "software", empirical evidence seems to
indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this
Maybe you shou
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist
> tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's
> proposed new social contract.
Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in
> there. You could
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I second this proposal with or without the 'as' in clause 2.
> My proposal to amend the Debian Social Contract follows. You can find
> the text of the existing Debian Social Contract at http://www.debian.org/social_contract > or on your Debian syste
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
> of declaring two winners. It is easy for me to imagine that both
> proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only
> one would be the C
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> editorial-only over your proposal, doesn't that mean that more people
> preferred
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be
> inappropriately defeated.
I'm aware of that. I simply disagree with your conclusion of
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> > Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be
> > inappropriately
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
>[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
>
> We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> distribute Debian operating system
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> > editorial-o
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:22:04 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 05:39:49PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment do
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist
> > tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's
> > proposed new social contract.
>
> Hm
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:11:39 -0500
Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We will not object to commercial software that is intended to run on
> Debian systems. We will allow others to create distributions
> containing Debian software, without any fee from us.
On fourth thought, this should read
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have a
> tag around all of section 5, which causes it to be shown struck through
> on my browser (Mozilla). It might have been improper to put
> around a whole that way. I changed it by moving the deletions
> ins
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > > Resolution.
> >
Hi,
> > 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
> >
> > When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
> > them as freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software
> Grammatical error. Should be "We will license them freely..."
Not sure. In my
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:24:41PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Compare: "I rate this runner quickly." (A quick act of rating) to "I
> rate this runner as quickly" (A runnter with the rating "quick").
If you wish to use the second form, you must drop the "ly" from quickly.
"I rate this runner
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the
> > Debian Free S
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:44:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> > > Branden's proposal ov
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The side effect being that removing the non-free section of our archive
> will only need a normal GR, or even a decision of the tech comitee,
> instead of needing a 3:1 (super) majority, like it does now, right ?
Not exactly. It chang
Hello,
I second the following proposal.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bi
On Oct 29, 2003, at 16:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
system of [-high-quality, 100% free software,-] {+high-quality
works
of software and other materials+} with no legal restrictions that
would prevent these [-kinds of use.
Please don't remove the word 'free' here. "high-quali
On Oct 30, 2003, at 00:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
of declaring two winners.
In this case, it does.
Option A: Semantic + Editorial Changes (BR Amendment)
Option B: Editorial Changes Only (??)
Opti
On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:29, Robert Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would
be
inappropriately defeated.
I'm aware
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:55:43PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> must be in a or a which themself must not contain tags
> other than directly. So must not have other parent elements
> than or , i.e. no .
Yeah, but the BODY element is defined like this:
The +(INS|DEL) part means that
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> > editorial-o
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free section"
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > Resolution.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
On 2003-10-30 05:34:22 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
While I share your wish that people would have a more closely-reasoned
understanding of the term "software", empirical evidence seems to
indicate that many people don't. I feel we should route around this
Maybe you should w
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist
> tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's
> proposed new social contract.
Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in
> there. You could
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I second this proposal with or without the 'as' in clause 2.
> My proposal to amend the Debian Social Contract follows. You can find
> the text of the existing Debian Social Contract at http://www.debian.org/social_contract > or on your Debian syste
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
> of declaring two winners. It is easy for me to imagine that both
> proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only
> one would be the C
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> editorial-only over your proposal, doesn't that mean that more people
> preferred
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be
> inappropriately defeated.
I'm aware of that. I simply disagree with your conclusion of
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> > Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be
> > inappropriately
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
>[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
>
> We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> distribute Debian operating system
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> > editorial-o
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:22:04 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 05:39:49PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:25:28 -0500
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment do
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist
> > tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's
> > proposed new social contract.
>
> Hm
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:11:39 -0500
Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We will not object to commercial software that is intended to run on
> Debian systems. We will allow others to create distributions
> containing Debian software, without any fee from us.
On fourth thought, this should read
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have a
> tag around all of section 5, which causes it to be shown struck through
> on my browser (Mozilla). It might have been improper to put
> around a whole that way. I changed it by moving the deletions
> ins
Hi,
> > 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
> >
> > When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
> > them as freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software
> Grammatical error. Should be "We will license them freely..."
Not sure. In my
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > > Resolution.
> >
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:24:41PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Compare: "I rate this runner quickly." (A quick act of rating) to "I
> rate this runner as quickly" (A runnter with the rating "quick").
If you wish to use the second form, you must drop the "ly" from quickly.
"I rate this runner
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text
> > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the
> > Debian Free S
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:44:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> > > Branden's proposal ov
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The side effect being that removing the non-free section of our archive
> will only need a normal GR, or even a decision of the tech comitee,
> instead of needing a 3:1 (super) majority, like it does now, right ?
Not exactly. It chang
Hello,
I second the following proposal.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bi
On Oct 29, 2003, at 16:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
system of [-high-quality, 100% free software,-] {+high-quality
works
of software and other materials+} with no legal restrictions that
would prevent these [-kinds of use.
Please don't remove the word 'free' here. "high-quality, fre
On Oct 30, 2003, at 00:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
of declaring two winners.
In this case, it does.
Option A: Semantic + Editorial Changes (BR Amendment)
Option B: Editorial Changes Only (??)
Option C:
On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:29, Robert Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would
be
inappropriately defeated.
I'm aware of tha
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:55:43PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> must be in a or a which themself must not contain tags
> other than directly. So must not have other parent elements
> than or , i.e. no .
Yeah, but the BODY element is defined like this:
The +(INS|DEL) part means that
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> > editorial-o
For starters: this is not (and cannot be[1]) a proposal. These suggested
changes to BR1 are offered in hopes that BR1 will be adjusted along
these lines. If for some reason someone wants to incorporate this as a
proposal, it needs to be proposed separately.
The changes:
1) Further clean up the so
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:19:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Actually, I disagree with one of the editorial changes (on-line ->
> online), but I haven't found any semantic changes in the proposal that I
> think I disagree with. I haven't decided yet if I care about the
> editorial change enou
60 matches
Mail list logo
