celebrate swell duke
LOW-COST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now you can get generic [EMAIL PROTECTED] for as low as $2.50 per dose,
with a FR|EE physician's consultation and discrete shipment to the
privacy of your home or office.
Costs over 60% less than Brand Name
FR|EE Doctor Consultation
FR|EE Shipp|ing
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
>
> It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
> in a list of options; if that'
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
> >
> > Huh? We
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> > ballot (ratify
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
[...]
> Depends who they want to punt to. If they're hap
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not
> in it.
Elsewhere[1] you said:
> At the moment, we basically just let the maintainers of non-free
> packages do all the work -- make sure the license is okay, get
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The same way we always have; by claiming that non-free isn't "part of
> > our distribution".
>
> Except we're not saying "our distribution" anymore, we're using the plural.
> We're also saying "100%", and "every work". There's noth
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-f
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
>
> This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1
> majority, and makes it extremely d
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> doing so for quite some time.
>
> In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the So
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:51:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> >
> > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove
On 2003-11-09, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>>
>> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
>> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Otherwise all
> options are treated equally. Thus "splitting the vote" would only
> make a difference to
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
> brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter b
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> something like:
[...]
I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
binaries". If I would not despise(sp?) non-free software, that would b
celebrate swell duke
LOW-COST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now you can get generic [EMAIL PROTECTED] for as low as $2.50 per dose,
with a FR|EE physician's consultation and discrete shipment to the
privacy of your home or office.
Costs over 60% less than Brand Name
FR|EE Doctor Consultation
FR|EE Shipp|ing
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
>
> It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
> in a list of options; if that'
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
> >
> > Huh? We
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> > ballot (ratify
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:48:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
[...]
> Depends who they want to punt to. If they're hap
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not
> in it.
Elsewhere[1] you said:
> At the moment, we basically just let the maintainers of non-free
> packages do all the work -- make sure the license is okay, get
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The same way we always have; by claiming that non-free isn't "part of
> > our distribution".
>
> Except we're not saying "our distribution" anymore, we're using the plural.
> We're also saying "100%", and "every work". There's noth
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>
> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
> [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-f
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
>
> This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1
> majority, and makes it extremely d
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> doing so for quite some time.
>
> In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the So
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:51:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> >
> > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove
On 2003-11-09, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
>>
>> [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
>> [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Otherwise all
> options are treated equally. Thus "splitting the vote" would only
> make a difference to
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
> brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter b
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> something like:
[...]
I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
binaries". If I would not despise(sp?) non-free software, that would b
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> [...]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running L
37 matches
Mail list logo
