On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
> affected and it's a "major PITA" to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had pack
Craig Sanders wrote:
> ALMOST FREE
> ---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines
On 2004-01-10 15:26:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
have created "contri
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian pr
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > section. The Debian projec
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:57:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If we're amending the social contract and keeping non-free, I think we should
> amend:
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software.
Good
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Clause 5 of the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >and thus [go a long way]
> >towards [getting non-free removed from Debian]", then they should want
> >to setup such an archive.
> If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>[...]
> If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
> to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:05:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would have been helpful to describe your changes.
Ok.
> Are DFSG 7 and 9 also required for entry into non-free?
Good point.
> I oppose this proposal because it increases confusion about what is
> part of the distribution and increas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Andrew Suffield
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debi
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >and thus [go a long way]
> > >towards [getting non-free removed from Debian]", then they should want
> > >to
Hi,
I would like to propose changes "s/non-free/semi-free/g" for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization "s/non-free/semi-free/g" to remove "non-free" from Debian.
Here is my rationale:
Whereas in the previous discussion on this "removal of n
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
> interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this
> proposal,> and to help me making the necessary word changes that may be
> necessary
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
>> If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
>> transition plan, then perh
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> > > I don't expect
This is a somewhat detailed description of the changes I'm proposing.
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
There were two sentences here, in my proposal there are three.
I changed the first sentence so the point of "entirely free software"
was clear, and to not contradict the constitution,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
As promised, i fill here a ammendment (or should it be called a
counter-proposal) to the remove non-free proposal. This can be seen as a
middle point between the two possibilities of the vote which were either keep
non-free and continue as usu
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least as
robust as Debian's, should you convince them they ought
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >But is that because of what's contained in "non-free" or is that
> >because
> >of the name "non-free"?
>
> Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked).
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:03:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
> >able
> >to make a commitment [...]
>
> I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This is formally an amendment to the
|resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
|(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
|in the sense of deleting all text other than "I propose the following
|resolutio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
Deb
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
* Raul Miller
| Also, since my pgp key is so ancient people with recently installed
| systems probably won't be able to verify it, and since I haven't submitted
| my new gpg key yet, could someone who can verify my signature please post
| a signed statement to the list indicating whether or not t
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR acti
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
"spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, an
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, you say :
>
>Additionally, we will work to provide free alternatives to
>non-free software so people who using only free software can work
>with users of non-free software.
>
> Which means moslty th
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
> covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
> propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
* Anthony Towns
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> | software.
> |
> | so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> What about th
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called "non-free" in
> Debian, the Free Software Organization. At the same time, I understand the
> practical benefits of the continuation of archive contents now called
> "non-fr
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
> > every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
> > you evidently are.
>
> Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ALMOST FREE
> > ---
>
> While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
> the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
> own guidelines th
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I would like to propose changes "s/non-free/semi-free/g" for the social
> contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
> reorganization "s/non-free/semi-free/g" to remove "non-free" from Debian.
At first glance, t
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is
> > this
> > in non-free?
>
> This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:52:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the
> >least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
>
> If you think that rounding off
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 02:03:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which
> > are
> > interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this
> > proposal,>
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > alternatives could we
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
> +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
> +authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
> +de
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > > alternatives could well not be packaged (yet). But on the same time, my
> > >
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> > intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
> >
> > There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> > propose a v
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
> >the end-user, however,
> Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
> modify wor
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
ha
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:06:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
> version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
> is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is formally an amendment to the
resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
in the sense of deleting all text other than "I propose the following
resolution:" and replacin
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
>
> There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> propose a version whi
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes somet
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 02:52:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Someone mentioned as well as storage locations, BTS and PTS will be
> affected and it's a "major PITA" to our users. Of course, that's
No, that's a major PITA to our developers. (I said the above.)
Did someone say 124 developers had pack
Craig Sanders wrote:
> ALMOST FREE
> ---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines
On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
transition plan, then perhaps.
That would probably allow the transition plan to block the GR action.
On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
able
to make a commitment [...]
I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitment at least as
robust as Debian's, should you convince them they ought.
-
On 2004-01-10 15:26:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of
programs
that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
have created "contrib"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Andrew Suffield
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debi
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Clause 5 of the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian pr
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>[...]
> If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
> to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.
If we're amending the social
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >and thus [go a long way]
> >towards [getting non-free removed from Debian]", then they should want
> >to setup such an archive.
> If I were to set up a non-free archive, complete
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:12:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > section. The Debian projec
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:05:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It would have been helpful to describe your changes.
Ok.
> Are DFSG 7 and 9 also required for entry into non-free?
Good point.
> I oppose this proposal because it increases confusion about what is
> part of the distribution and increas
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >and thus [go a long way]
> > >towards [getting non-free removed from Debian]", then they should want
> > >to
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:57:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If we're amending the social contract and keeping non-free, I think we should
> amend:
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software.
Good
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Since the non-free GR and t
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:22:57PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >But is that because of what's contained in "non-free" or is that
> >because
> >of the name "non-free"?
>
> Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked).
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:03:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-10 11:55:07 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be
> >able
> >to make a commitment [...]
>
> I suspect that W3C (for example) could make a commitm
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this
> > in non-free?
>
> This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
Ah, ok, sure.
I thought that proposals should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is formally an amendment to the
resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
in the sense of deleting all text other than "I propose the following
resolution:" and replacin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
As promised, i fill here a ammendment (or should it be called a
counter-proposal) to the remove non-free proposal. This can be seen as a
middle point between the two possibilities of the vote which were either keep
non-free and continue as usu
This is a somewhat detailed description of the changes I'm proposing.
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
There were two sentences here, in my proposal there are three.
I changed the first sentence so the point of "entirely free software"
was clear, and to not contradict the constitution,
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:00:27 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-10 08:56:37 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> Can a GR commit to any specific transition support?
>> If the other actions proposed by hte GR are contingent of the
>> transition plan, then perh
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> > > I don't expect
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
> interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this proposal,> and
> to help me making the necessary word changes that may be necessary.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|This is formally an amendment to the
|resolution proposed by Andrew Suffield on 29 Dec 2003
|(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html),
|in the sense of deleting all text other than "I propose the following
|resolutio
Hi,
I would like to propose changes "s/non-free/semi-free/g" for the social
contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
reorganization "s/non-free/semi-free/g" to remove "non-free" from Debian.
Here is my rationale:
Whereas in the previous discussion on this "removal of n
* Anthony Towns
| 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
|
| We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
| software.
|
| so that we can avoid having to claim that
What about the Hurd and the BSDs?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
* Raul Miller
| Also, since my pgp key is so ancient people with recently installed
| systems probably won't be able to verify it, and since I haven't submitted
| my new gpg key yet, could someone who can verify my signature please post
| a signed statement to the list indicating whether or not t
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 02:03:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, i ask the people who are interested in such a proposal, or even which are
> > interested in providing one more option for the vote, to second this proposal,>
> > and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I would like to propose changes "s/non-free/semi-free/g" for the social
> contract after sarge release together with smooth archive directory
> reorganization "s/non-free/semi-free/g" to remove "non-free" from Debian.
At first glance, t
* Anthony Towns
>
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> |
> | We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> | software.
> |
> | so that we can avoid having to claim that
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> What about th
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, you say :
>
>Additionally, we will work to provide free alternatives to
>non-free software so people who using only free software can work
>with users of non-free software.
>
> Which means moslty th
This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
propose a GR based around this in a few days.
"spurious" here means that I consider the offending item to add
nothing but words (ie, it doesn't mean anything, an
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ALMOST FREE
> > ---
>
> While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
> the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
> own guidelines th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal replaces the amendment I submitted earlier today. This
version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the contract
is with. I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.
We will change the title of the social contract to read:
Deb
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:38PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This got delayed a bit longer than I was hoping, but I think this
> covers everything. Changes from the second draft are at the end. I'll
> propose a GR based around this in a few days.
And I just sent a modified version of my own
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:40:17PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I do understand the negative feeling of carrying archive called "non-free" in
> Debian, the Free Software Organization. At the same time, I understand the
> practical benefits of the continuation of archive contents now called
> "non-fr
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:02:09PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > It is simply not possible to discuss people who are not honest and try
> > every trick in the book to come out right, even if they are wrong, as
> > you evidently are.
>
> Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I
On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say
the
least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
If you think that rounding off is dishonest, you must be really fun
when buying things that have sa
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:52:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-12 00:26:59 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the
> >least, as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
>
> If you think that rounding off
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also, this means that we will provide free alternatives, which is a bit
> > more but also a bit less than what i propose. In my proposal the free
> > alternatives could we
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
> +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
> +authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
> +de
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
