On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted t
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is documen
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> > > without confusing uninitiated users. For ex
Several people have asked me to remove different sentences from my
proposal to amend the Social Contract. For now, at least, I've elected
to leave those sentences in place.
If you are someone who has asked me to remove something, I can give you
several options:
[a] Convince me that you understan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted 2004-01-12.
I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve grammar,
reduce my overuse of "to depend" words, and make clearer the reason I'm
mentioning LSB in the context of non-free.
Let's hold of
One of the fundamental arguments for getting rid of non-free is that it
makes the social contract simpler. But this isn't enough justification
alone, because while simplicity isn't a virtue, point 4 of the social
contract makes clear that simplicity isn't our highest priority.
But then there's th
Raul Miller wrote:
But, value statements are best judged locally -- it's really up to
the user to decide whether the potential harm from a non-DFSG license
outweighs whatever other issues the user is dealing with.
So the real question should be "does non-free harm users more than it
helps them?
> > But, value statements are best judged locally -- it's really up to
> > the user to decide whether the potential harm from a non-DFSG license
> > outweighs whatever other issues the user is dealing with.
> >
> > So the real question should be "does non-free harm users more than it
> > helps the
Hi,
I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like to
install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by the NPO's
general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation of the software
used by debian to gather and confirm the votes of the members (I've seen the
Raul Miller wrote:
Shouldn't the real question be "Is distributing non-free compatible with
Debian developer ethics?"
What are these ethics which conflict with the current form of the social
contract we require every developer to be familiar with?
However, maybe you have some insight into
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:55:57PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> My vision is based on the fact that most users do not care about
> software freeness. Most of them are not acquainted with such complicated
> issue as software freeness, source codes etc. So, educated in this area
> software
Raul Miller wrote:
If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our
"non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly.
Is it very clever(
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
> > dishonest. After all, you are the one that said your package has "0
> > entries in popcon"[1], then tried to change it to "used"[2] once I had
> > shown you to be i
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
> obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:03:09PM -0600, John Goerzen 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'.
>
> I had no idea what the results would be before running the program, and
> did not alter it to
Raul Miller wrote:
> > If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
> > idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
> > But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our
> > "non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly.
On We
Raul Miller wrote:
Is it very clever(ethical) to increase users dependency on non-free even
more?
You're asking several different things here and maybe saying something
I disagree with at the same time.
Are we increasing users dependency on non-free? How?
By distributing non-free Debian in
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >>Is it very clever(ethical) to increase users dependency on non-free even
> >>more?
> >
> > You're asking several different things here and maybe saying something
> > I disagree with at the same time.
> >
> > Are we increasing users dependency on non-free? How?
On Thu
Raul Miller wrote:
By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.
How? And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?
To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so
important to what degree.
As I said users are less educated (because they are users) in
com
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous occasions
> > > in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or honour
> > > - you will utter any lie in the name of your cause.
> >
> > Which i
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:57:09AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > you are missing the point.
>
> No, you are.
sorry, but you are blind, ignorant and stupid.
i have no time to waste in a futile attempt to educate you.
craig
> >>By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > How? And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 02:02:47AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so
> important to what
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:11:40PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous
> > > > occasions
> > > > in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or
> >
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:01PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so, you ARE a liar with an extremely short memory.
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:33:20 +1100
> (in reply to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Calling me a "lying fuck" hardly proves that I am; and in fact, it s
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:50:33PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
> >idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
> >But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less fre
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:35:04PM +0200, Alon Altman wrote:
> I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like to
> install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by the
> NPO's general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation of the
> software used by debian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:03:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 17th. There's a
> non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
Yep:
> 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
s/Programs/Software/
Hamish
--
Hamish
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted 2004-01-14.
I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve
spelling and grammar. I've also changed the title of part 5
to be about Software, like the rest of the social contract.
Let's hold off o
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wro
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:35:04 +0200 (IST), Alon Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like
> to install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by
> the NPO's general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation
> of the
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction
of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't
have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to
see it.
The popcon results posted to -vo
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote:
5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
Should this say "Software that doesn't" instead?
Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but
does
documentation == software?
No, not all software is documentation. H
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:28:46PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that it would be hard to make use of such a line
> > > without confusing uninitiated users. For ex
Several people have asked me to remove different sentences from my
proposal to amend the Social Contract. For now, at least, I've elected
to leave those sentences in place.
If you are someone who has asked me to remove something, I can give you
several options:
[a] Convince me that you understan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted 2004-01-12.
I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve grammar,
reduce my overuse of "to depend" words, and make clearer the reason I'm
mentioning LSB in the context of non-free.
Let's hold of
One of the fundamental arguments for getting rid of non-free is that it
makes the social contract simpler. But this isn't enough justification
alone, because while simplicity isn't a virtue, point 4 of the social
contract makes clear that simplicity isn't our highest priority.
But then there's th
Raul Miller wrote:
But, value statements are best judged locally -- it's really up to
the user to decide whether the potential harm from a non-DFSG license
outweighs whatever other issues the user is dealing with.
So the real question should be "does non-free harm users more than it
helps them?"
> > But, value statements are best judged locally -- it's really up to
> > the user to decide whether the potential harm from a non-DFSG license
> > outweighs whatever other issues the user is dealing with.
> >
> > So the real question should be "does non-free harm users more than it
> > helps the
Hi,
I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like to
install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by the NPO's
general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation of the software
used by debian to gather and confirm the votes of the members (I've seen the
Raul Miller wrote:
Shouldn't the real question be "Is distributing non-free compatible with
Debian developer ethics?"
What are these ethics which conflict with the current form of the social
contract we require every developer to be familiar with?
However, maybe you have some insight into this
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:55:57PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> My vision is based on the fact that most users do not care about
> software freeness. Most of them are not acquainted with such complicated
> issue as software freeness, source codes etc. So, educated in this area
> software
Raul Miller wrote:
If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our
"non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly.
Is it very clever(ethi
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> http://gopher.quux.org:70/Computers/Debian/Mailing%20Lists/debian-devel/debian-devel.199811%7C/MBOX-MESSAGE/148
^^
One word: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm
> > dishonest. After all, you are the one that said your package has "0
> > entries in popcon"[1], then tried to change it to "used"[2] once I had
> > shown you to be i
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:08:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> no, i think the reason why he chose to round off is dishonest. this was
> obvious from what i wrote.
No, the reason I chose to round off was because my terminal is 80
characters wide.
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:03:09PM -0600, John Goerzen 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'.
>
> I had no idea what the results would be before running the program, and
> did not alter it to adju
Raul Miller wrote:
> > If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
> > idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
> > But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our
> > "non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly.
On We
Raul Miller wrote:
Is it very clever(ethical) to increase users dependency on non-free even
more?
You're asking several different things here and maybe saying something
I disagree with at the same time.
Are we increasing users dependency on non-free? How?
By distributing non-free Debian increases
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> >>Is it very clever(ethical) to increase users dependency on non-free even
> >>more?
> >
> > You're asking several different things here and maybe saying something
> > I disagree with at the same time.
> >
> > Are we increasing users dependency on non-free? How?
On Thu
Raul Miller wrote:
By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.
How? And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?
To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so
important to what degree.
As I said users are less educated (because they are users) in
complicated
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous occasions
> > > in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or honour
> > > - you will utter any lie in the name of your cause.
> >
> > Which i
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:57:09AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > you are missing the point.
>
> No, you are.
sorry, but you are blind, ignorant and stupid.
i have no time to waste in a futile attempt to educate you.
craig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> >>By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > How? And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 02:02:47AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so
> important to what
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:11:40PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:09:04AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous occasions
> > > > in this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or honour
> > >
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:26:01PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so, you ARE a liar with an extremely short memory.
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:33:20 +1100
> (in reply to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Calling me a "lying fuck" hardly proves that I am; and in fact, it s
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:50:33PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the
> >idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users.
> >But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less fre
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:35:04PM +0200, Alon Altman wrote:
> I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like to
> install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by the
> NPO's general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation of the
> software used by debian
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:03:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 17th. There's a
> non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
Yep:
> 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
s/Programs/Software/
Hamish
--
Hamish
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted 2004-01-14.
I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve
spelling and grammar. I've also changed the title of part 5
to be about Software, like the rest of the social contract.
Let's hold off o
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:32:42 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:31:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wro
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:35:04 +0200 (IST), Alon Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I am a member of an Israeli free software NPO, and we would like
> to install the debian voting system to foster electronic voting by
> the NPO's general assembly. Where can I find code and documentation
> of the
62 matches
Mail list logo
