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.
>
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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 no
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 Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
Prove that it isn't.
It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate
his assumptions.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:05:09PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >
> >and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
> >mozilla based browser.
>
> ... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:14:30PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-02 20:08:33 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Are you talking about
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg1.html?
>
> Dunno. I'm not at my connected machine when writing this. If i
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 Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:09:22PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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 no
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:33:51AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And what was my last example, a yes, lha. I hear there are some free
> versions of this one around. I would be happy to package it if this was
> the case, please point me to alternatives, and we can remove lha from
> non-free, no proble
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > - get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
> > > own computers.
> >
> > The issue here is not what other people run on their own
> > computers. The issue is what Debian will and will not distribute.
>
>
On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
[...]
flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
This is ad hominem
On 2004-01-05 15:34:37 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] How is it fair to expect list readers to know what
you've done for your employer?
I think my experience of BTSes and archives is similar to many DDs, so
hardly worth stating.
I didn't see anything in Anthony's messag
On 2004-01-05 17:48:50 + Oliver Elphick wrote:
We have a commitment
to maintain it as long as it is needed (social contract) and we should
abide by that commitment; not chop and change for ideological reasons.
What is the temporal scope of our social contract? Current and past
releases?
On 2004-01-05 14:19:02 + Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type
packages to
use.
/usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers
(It's already there, and has been for a while)
Near the end, it suggests not doing it that way
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
> >>is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
> >
> >Prove that it isn't.
>
> It
> On 2004-01-06 02:21:05 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
> [...]
> >> flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
> >
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
> >>is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
> >Prove that it isn't.
> It is the duty
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:51:15AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:33:51AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And what was my last example, a yes, lha. I hear there are some free
> > versions of this one around. I would be happy to package it if this was
> > the case, please poi
On 2004-01-05 15:34:37 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't see anything in Anthony's message to make me believe that he
> > knew about your employment history.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:09:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Nor do I, but I didn't claim that he did. You seem to argu
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:00:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > - get a life and stop worrying about what other people run on their
> > > > own computers.
> > >
> > > The issue here is not what other people run on their own
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:33:51AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And what was my last example, a yes, lha. I hear there are some free
> > versions of this one around. I would be happy to package it if this was
> > the case, please point me to alternatives, and we can remove lha from
> > non-free,
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:23:01PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...] I don't think that would be any better morally than a
> >commercial firm's decision to abandon support for a product which was
> >not sufficiently profitable.
> Would anyone argue that orphaning or deleting individual packages was
>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is
> useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're
> likely to need this documentation and [because someone doing network
> development often n
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:37:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And what debian developers are allowed to work on inside of debian's
> > > infrastructure.
> >
> > Care to elaborate? I don't understand that point.
>
> I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver,
[...]
Ah, ok. Thought yo
Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in
another thread. It's all process rather than the issue. I'll not reply
on-list like this again, but I wanted to put one example in public and
hope people draw the correct conclusion about the other threads I
ignore. Sorry fo
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:53:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the
> > documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with
> > debian.org in it.
>
> "Absolutely need
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:05:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in
> another thread.
Um... I wasn't objecting to the volume -- I was objecting to you
[seemingly deliberately, because the case was so simple] quoting out
of context.
> >
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the
> documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with debian.org in
> it.
"Absolutely needs" is a straw man argument.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawm
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> community. We will place their interests first in our
> priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
> in many different kinds of computing environment.
>
> We acknowledge that some o
On Jan 6, 2004, at 08:00, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
is based on the assumption that non-free is important and usefu
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:01:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The "per package" costs are, indeed, trivial.
Great, so we only need to find somebody who thinks the rest is trivial,
and we're set?
Michael
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i have no idea why you're mentioning it, though, because it doesn't
> seem to apply to you. according to NM, you only applied to become a
> developer in October 2003, many years after we discussed the social
> contract and DFSG.
My involvement with Debi
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Did you ever use Sourceforge? How difficult would it be for you to setup
> a Sourceforge-like project to distribute and maintain your driver? What
> would be the initial cost of setting it up, what would be the cost of
> maintaining i
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the
> > > documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with
> > > debian.org in it.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:53:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "Absolut
> > The "per package" costs are, indeed, trivial.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:08:32PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Great, so we only need to find somebody who thinks the rest is trivial,
> and we're set?
If "the rest" is inclusive enough, and that person's thoughts are accurate
enough, and unders
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
> support... Even for non-free.
Non-free does not get autobuilt.
Michael
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> 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; re
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > And what happens to be one of the advantages of Debian? Its multi-arch
> > support... Even for non-free.
>
> Non-free does not get autobuilt.
I know, so it n
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:40:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
I drop out of this. I'd rather fix a couple of bugs than play games
about words.
Michael
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:56:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I do believe that Debian should not be distributing non-free software in
> any way. Our project is about Free Software, and that is how it should
> remain. I do believe that Free Software is the right way to go, but
> removing non-fr
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, 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. they like to pretend
> that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Sourceforge has a compile farm[1], and Debian has numerous machines DD's
> can login too[2]. Not everybody has 11 different arches in their
> basement... Without access to Debian-unstable boxes of all
Debian's autobuilders do
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Do you believe Debian should not be distributing what the Free Software
> Foundation classifies as "semi-free" software?
>
>http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html
>
> If so, why?
I do not believe Debian should be distribut
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:21:22PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Sourceforge has a compile farm[1], and Debian has numerous machines DD's
> > can login too[2]. Not everybody has 11 different arches in their
> > basement... Wi
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Not with respect to the porting, I agree. Concerning the merely
> building of the binary .deb files... the maintainer only needs how to
> login on a remote debian system and how to invoke dpkg-buildpackage -
That is not alway
I received a banner to do this with the message that I was a 500,000,000
person to visit the site. To close the banner immediately and
contact the prize department.
But would u please tell me whom to contact and when and where ?
Thanks
Chirag
> but, i guess that doesn't matter to you, because it's not you that will be
> suffering the annoyance or the PITA.
If you == "Dale E Martin", you guess wrong. If it didn't matter to me, I
would not be engaged in this discussion at all. I'm trying to understand
the cost/benefit since one day thi
On 2004-01-06 13:37:12 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I maintain a non-free package, the unicorn driver, which is really
almost GPLed, except for its dependence on a soft ADSL library where
not
even the manufacturer of the hardware has the source for. [...]
The discussion on -
On 2004-01-06 09:33:51 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ok, so then, please someone write a nice software ADSL library, so my
unicorn ADSL modem driver can go in main.
Asking for it is a start, but maybe this should be done more visibly
than an email to debian-vote. There may be
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one
> > by one. Otherwise I'm compelled to believe that Craig is largely correct.
>
> His very first
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:56:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:02:45PM +1100, 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. they like to
> > pretend that
One non-free package which can be replaced relatively straightforwardly:
mpg123 (non-free) is approximately equal to mpg321 (in main)
Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people contradicting
me but one package would be a start :)
To reiterate one of my points in favour of Debian a
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> In all the cases that I've been involved with, where the resultant
> software has been freed, the presence or absence of the software in
> Debian has not been the the most important factor. What matters is
> communication with upstrea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, 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. they like to
> > > pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:39:13PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people contradicting
> me but one package would be a start :)
No, this is perfect.
The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
non-free in non-free with a
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:14AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one
> > > by one. Otherwise I'm
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Do you believe Debian should not be distributing what the Free Software
> > Foundation classifies as "semi-free" software?
> >
> >http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categ
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
> non-free in non-free with a free equivalent.
Of course, the problem is that there are always more non-free packages
to be uploaded. When first I proposed the elimina
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:28AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> ncftp, Qt and, by extension, KDE are three that i can think of off the top of
> my head that had their licenses changed/clarified/made free in part because
> debian relegated them to non-free (and contrib). i'm sure other people can
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is
> the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure,
> search voluminous archives for illuminating discussions upon all those
> points with rel
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
> > non-free in non-free with a free equivalent.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:00:44PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Of course, the problem is that there are always mor
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > > the fact that modified versions can not be redistributed
> > > > > really makes NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE to anyone at all.
>
> you are no worse off due to the existence of these non-free data
> sets.
Their existence or non-existence is not the p
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free
> > for
> > use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be
>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> We have proven to the world that a free operating system can compete
> with the best proprietary operating systems.
>
> Now let us prove to the world that this operating system can stand up on
> its own, without the crutch of non-free
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:59:51AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
> > rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is
> > actually less free than something without source (such as Netscape 4.7).
> > The no d
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> glorious words.
>
> trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
Well then, it should be no problem to remove.
> > If you are a business and almost-free means home or educational use only,
> > that di
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:13:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:00:44PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Of course, the problem is that there are always more non-free packages
> > to be uploaded. When first I proposed the elimination of non-free,
> > there was much whining
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:13:00PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > glorious words.
> >
> > trouble is, that non-free isn't a crutch. non-free isn't that significant.
>
> Well then, it should be no problem to remove.
no.
you just d
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:21:26AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > The simple answer is: the reason that we should not distribute them is
> > the same as the reason that they are not DFSG-free. You can, I'm sure,
> > search voluminous
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:00:44PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Of course, the problem is that there are always more non-free packages
> > > to be uploaded. When first I proposed the elimination of non-free,
> > > there was much whining about Netscape. Now I hear much whining about
> > >
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 00:16, John Goerzen wrote:
> Indeed. Let us do a service for our users and provide them with only
> the software that they can legally use, modify, distribute, and hack on,
> together with documentation that meets those criteria.
This is just silly! Software without the doc
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:03:43PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 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 wa
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:01:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> You have upto now simply refused to give specific examples, and didn't
> respond to me when i cited 3 cases i am concerned about, and which show
> well the actual status of non-free software.
Yes, strangely enough I don't feel compelle
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> 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; re
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
> rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is
> actually less free than something without source (such as Netscape 4.7).
> The no discrimina
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:47:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The right way to get rid of non-free is to replace each package in
> non-free in non-free with a free equivalent.
>
> I know at least one person who would disaprove of that because it doesn't
> require any special vote. And, of course
> > 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
> >
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:44:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:19:51PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I think it has something to do with fonts being non-free.
>
> Thank you.
>
> If that is the reason why this is bad, then your statement "there are
> always more non-fre
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:35:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> You cannot get rid of non-free without a vote. All that you can do is
> to empty it. Even if it were empty, it must remain until a vote
> occurs.
That's not currently a relevant issue.
That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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; rea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:58:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:24:48PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I do not believe Debian should be distributing such software. It
> > rightly fails the DFSG. For some users (for instance, a business) it is
> > actually less free th
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That's not currently a relevant issue.
> > >
> > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > > non-free contains packages som
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:46:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:35:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You cannot get rid of non-free without a vote. All that you can do is
> > to empty it. Even if it were empty, it must remain until a vote
> > occurs.
>
> That's not c
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > We have proven to the world that a free operating system can compete
> > with the best proprietary operating systems.
> > Now let us prove to the world that this operati
You said this:
> > > Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > > non-DFSG-free stuff.
My point is that multiplying a "very few resources" times two is still
"very small resources. I assumed you meant developer time and effort were
part of these resources.
> > There are tons of those already, m
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:46:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:35:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > You cannot get rid of non-free without a vote. All that you can do is
> > > to empty it. Even if
> There would be very little practical benefit to dropping non free.
Yes, we agree there.
> That's not the same as saying that there would be very little practical
> impact [unless you ignore the impact on the users, and on the people who
> support non-free].
Let's spell it out:
Benefits
-
> > That's not currently a relevant issue.
> >
> > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > non-free contains packages some people rely on.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suf
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:24:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We will no longer provide free worldwide distribution for software we
> > consider licensed unethically. We will no longer be a crutch for those
> > that seek to prosper from our lack of ethical courage.
>
> Well, that's nice. How
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:56:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 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
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:48:01AM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 00:16, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Indeed. Let us do a service for our users and provide them with only
> > the software that they can legally use, modify, distribute, and hack on,
> > together with documentation t
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:44:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:19:51PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I think it has something to do with fonts being non-free.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > If that is the reason why this is bad, then your statement "there are
> > alw
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> Then wonder why no jabbering reactionaries are up in arms about non-free
> not living up to its potential.
Because there are other more important things to worry about at the
moment. There's a time for everything.
Cheers,
aj
--
Ant
> > Why do you find that solution so unacceptable that you think Debian *must*
> > do something else?
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:17:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> As time passes, it appears to me more and more that the continued
> presence of non-free is incompatible with the long-term interest
> > > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?"
> >
> > I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:22:54AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I know that not everybody agrees with you.
Which makes me unique, how?
Or: so?
You'
> > http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:48AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This page is wrong.
You're not offering any evidence for any of your assertions, are you?
Here's another page:
http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm
Seems
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:27:03PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> You said this:
> > > > Very few Debian resources are spent on
> > > > non-DFSG-free stuff.
> My point is that multiplying a "very few resources" times two is still
> "very small resources. I assumed you meant developer time and effor
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > non-free contains packages some people rely on.
> Now, assume that non-free is not e
P.S.
> > > > 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 y
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:12:00PM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Benefits
>
> - Perceived philosophical benefit in supporting only DFSG compliant
> software as a project.
Presumably you should list "Perceived philosophical costs in not
supporting as a project all the software we legally
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
