On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:11:58 -0500, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We made a promise to users; and even called it a ``contract''. Now
>> we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we going to just
>> leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan, no support
>> going forward?
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But our "non-free" includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
calls
"semi-free" software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
There is no reason for the FDL-related debate "what is software?" to
appear in this
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to
get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such
software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal
if there were reasona
On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your
level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the
proposal is less appealing by the moment.
Here is the "you don't use these non-free packag
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
measurements. You have elected to provide no
On Jan 5, 2004, at 07:10, MJ Ray wrote:
Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian,
especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical
distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package
metadata should include info for reportbug-type pa
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:34:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of whatever
> >> actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll -- and even
> >> build upon th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
> > measurements. You have elected to p
> Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> work is non-free specific.
Yes, my point was that there would be little practi
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But our "non-free" includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
> > calls
> > "semi-free" software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:34:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> There is no reason
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 21:09, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to
> > spin non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over
> > dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly
> > Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> > bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> > work is non-free specific.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, D
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > see this as big stumbling block.
>
> Both of which represent far larger efforts
> > > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > > see this as big stumbling block.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Both of which represent far larger ef
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:37:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:23 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>
> >> > and
> > > We can't meaningfully pass a GR that determines what some non-Debian
> > > project does - so I can't think how that would be any different.
> > How is it any less meaningful than passing a GR that woulkd be
> > in contravention of the social contract? And not so long ago you were
> > a
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. they like to pretend
that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free,
that source-code isn't available.
Nothing could be further from th
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Which means the only resources we can "concentrate" are our servers, not
> > our developers' time, which means we get _no_ benefit from this, as far
> > as I can see.
>
> The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well,
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> > bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> > work is
While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
--
.''`. ** Debian G
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:04:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > We can't meaningfully pass a GR that determines what some non-Debian
> > > > project does - so I can't think how that would be any different.
>
> > > How is it any less meaningful than passing a GR that woulkd be
> > > in cont
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> on the details.
> > Neither can result in action without further effort. Both can result
> > in action with further effort.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:45:02AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> In only one case is that an instance of "With that and $10 you can
> have a cup of coffee".
Which one is that?
Why not t
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
> compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
> post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
> flaws. The first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
> compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
> post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
> flaws. The first
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Another instance is still not as good. You couldn't reassign a bug from
a non-free package to a
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:11:40PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:34:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We made a promise to users; and even called it a
> > ``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
> > going to just leave the users
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> > more progressively?
> It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal t
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:11:58 -0500, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We made a promise to users; and even called it a ``contract''. Now
>> we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we going to just
>> leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan, no support
>> going forward?
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But our "non-free" includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
calls
"semi-free" software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
There is no reason for the FDL-related debate "what is software?" to
appear in this thr
On 2004-01-04 05:26:03 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, though I am sympathetic in part to the folks that want to
get rid of non-free, I am also concerned for the users of such
software -- and I would be far more likely to vote for the proposal
if there were reasonable expec
On 2004-01-04 06:31:01 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you are referring to angband and tome, and this is your
level of understanding about replacements, I must confess the
proposal is less appealing by the moment.
Here is the "you don't use these non-free packages,
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
measurements. You have elected to provide none o
On Jan 5, 2004, at 07:10, MJ Ray wrote:
Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian,
especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical
distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package
metadata should include info for reportbug-type packa
On 2004-01-04 14:46:03 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But our "non-free" includes non-software (such as fonts) and what he
> > calls
> > "semi-free" software, so you're using ambiguous terminology here.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:34:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> There is no reason
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:34:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of whatever
> >> actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll -- and even
> >> build upon th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
> > measurements. You have elected to p
> Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> work is non-free specific.
Yes, my point was that there would be little practi
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 21:09, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to
> > spin non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over
> > dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly
> > Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> > bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> > work is non-free specific.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, D
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > see this as big stumbling block.
>
> Both of which represent far larger efforts
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:37:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:23 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>
> >> > and
> > > There are tons of those already, many in wide use. download.kde.org,
> > > backports.org, and the bunk backport collection all come to mind. I don't
> > > see this as big stumbling block.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:15:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Both of which represent far larger ef
> > > We can't meaningfully pass a GR that determines what some non-Debian
> > > project does - so I can't think how that would be any different.
> > How is it any less meaningful than passing a GR that woulkd be
> > in contravention of the social contract? And not so long ago you were
> > a
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Which means the only resources we can "concentrate" are our servers, not
> > our developers' time, which means we get _no_ benefit from this, as far
> > as I can see.
>
> The only benefit anyone can argue is philosophical. (Well,
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. they like to pretend
that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free,
that source-code isn't available.
Nothing could be further from th
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to
remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Uh, we're already doing that. Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > non-DFSG-free stuff. A single day's uploads takes more disk space and
> > bandwidth than the entirety of non-free. None of the regular maintenance
> > work is
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:04:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > We can't meaningfully pass a GR that determines what some non-Debian
> > > > project does - so I can't think how that would be any different.
>
> > > How is it any less meaningful than passing a GR that woulkd be
> > > in cont
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to
> first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a
> super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus
> on the details.
While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
--
.''`. ** Debian G
> > Neither can result in action without further effort. Both can result
> > in action with further effort.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:45:02AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> In only one case is that an instance of "With that and $10 you can
> have a cup of coffee".
Which one is that?
Why not t
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
> compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
> post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
> flaws. The first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
> compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
> post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
> flaws. The first
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Another instance is still not as good. You couldn't reassign a bug from
a non-free package to a
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> > more progressively?
> It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal t
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:11:40PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:34:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We made a promise to users; and even called it a
> > ``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
> > going to just leave the users
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, 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.
Many of us are actually aware of what is in non-free, as we took part
in discussions leading to its placement there.
>
59 matches
Mail list logo
