Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Remi Vanicat wrote:
>>>
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we wi
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
[...]
I presented a good example how Debian compels himself to non-etchical
action by d
On 2004-01-13 12:38:57 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with a different
BTS. etc. Especially since it's all con and
On 2004-01-13 13:50:00 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's relevant to whether it's moral or not to remove someone else's
non-free package.
Again, that wasn't quite the question.
Is there some reason you quote material out of context? Do you not
understand what you read?
Con
On 2004-01-18 18:53:41 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. [...]
No it doesn't. It merely impedes it. I think this is the root (canal?)
of your argument's problems.
And adding entries to /etc/apt/sources.list grants other people
root acces
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
>> must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
>> action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
>> [...]
>
> I presented a good exa
Please obey the Mail-Followup-To header.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm glad that you aggree that some things are better not in the
> project's hosting.
I didn't say nor imply that. There are certainly some things we cannot
host at all for one reason or anything.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
> >Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dea
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not
> >>>an insignificant portion of our developers, you know.
> >>"insignificant" is a noise word unless you define what you see as
> >>significant.
> >Well I don't conside
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an update to my previous proposal to address some of the
criticisms the propsal has received. In this proposal, I spell out
in a bit more detail the relationship between our guidelines and our
"non-free" distribution, and clean up the rest of part 5 to f
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:17:53AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted earlier today
>
> This draft replaces the LSB reference with an ABI reference.
>
> Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 19th. Th
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The statistics summary by John Goerzen on vote (which you replied to)
> suggested that at least 18% of popcon users are using a non-Debian
> source, as we don't have j2re1.4. Is over a sixth a large fraction?
> Depends on what you mean by
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 07:34:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers who
> >>want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers who
> >>think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The way we are doing it, by removing non-free from the debian archive in
> hope for the upstream authors releasing their software in a more free
> licence, could also be seen as an unclean racket to try to pry away
> their software from
Sven Luther wrote:
I did not accuse you in maintaining the unicorn driver. I said that
Debian compel himself to non-ethical actions by distributing the package
which you maintain.
You also said this is a result of my packaging work on non-free
packages, thus leveling an indirect accusation ag
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:20:22PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>So what were you calling a majo
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> if you
really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will
immideately stop saying this.
I think that acting non-ethical sometimes does not make anybody
non-ethical. To accuse someone, that he is non-ethical one should
summarize ethical and non-eth
Raul Miller wrote:
> > there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
> > if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
> > of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
> > non-free packages are making.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package
> with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help
> people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:45:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The way we are doing it, by removing non-free from the debian archive in
> > hope for the upstream authors releasing their software in a more free
> > licence, could also
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
>> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
>>> non-free we will decrease the amount
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:03:37PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I did not accuse you in maintaining the unicorn driver. I said that
> >>Debian compel himself to non-ethical actions by distributing the package
> >>which you maintain.
> >
> >You also said this is a re
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
> doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, we could bitch about this all the time, so we don't have to
discuss any other issues.
Do you
Sven Luther wrote:
I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in dictionary. Probably
it is something like lie?
saying that because of the work i do on non-free package, i personnally
and the debian project of which
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in dictionary. Probably
it is something like lie?
saying that because of the work i do on non-free package, i personnally
and
On 2004-01-19 14:20:47 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I want you to stop this diffamation, and retract your unfunded
accusations,
First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
regards it as unethical was given. Finally, I don't think there was
malice again
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
> plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
> provide good
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> > supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
> > plan going. Hey, yo
Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package
with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help
people to solve their tasks. It com
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
>
> I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in
> dictionary. Probably it is something like lie?
>
>> saying that because of the work i do on non-fre
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Yes I say (not because I wanted to hurt you) that Debian acts
non-ethically and I provided an example, how and in which case this
happens. Is it incorrect?
Yes it is. Your example do not convince me that this was non-ethical to
make non-free package.
This is good because
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>>
>>> Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a
>>> package with closed source and distribute it, it
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The main problem being the non-existance of ftp.non-free.org, and the
> > doubt that such a thing will ever happen in a satisfactory way.
>
> Yeah, we could bitch about
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> > > supporting our users to m
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:32:50PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by
>
> I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in dictionary. Probably
> it is something like lie?
Maybe slander would be a mor
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
> things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
> and its infrastructure from me.
Then shut up, fix bugs and vote "No" when the time is righ
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > *I* don't mind dumping non-free to /dev/null, but I see the point in
> > > supporting our users to migrate, so that's why I try to get a transition
> > > plan going. Hey, you don't even have to *do* something, you just need to
> >
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 14:20:47 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I want you to stop this diffamation, and retract your unfunded
> >accusations,
>
> First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
> regards it
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
> > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
> > years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
>
> I'm guessing you're thinking: fork
On Jan 18, 2004, at 21:59, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a
package name registry, for example.
Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though?
I don't t
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:02:29PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>
> >>Yes I say (not because I wanted to hurt you) that Debian acts
> >>non-ethically and I provided an example, how and in which case this
> >>happens. Is it incorrect?
> >
> >
> >Yes it is. Your example d
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 14:20:47 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I want you to stop this diffamation, and retract your unfunded
> >accusations,
>
> First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
> regards it
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:24:17PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL
> >> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> >>
> >>> Producing and distributing non-free is e
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:20:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And this doesn't apply to me only, i am perfectly happy with the way
> > things are, it is the other who are trying to take the non-free archive
> > and its infrastructu
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
> > > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
> > > years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
absolutely non-free - you have freedom to learn how program works,
to modify it for your own needs, to di
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to person
'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own actions! Probably
at this moment I will decide to cry "It's not me, who put me in such a
situation. It is an author of this program, who doe
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But he does! That is his fault!
And if someone will say to me, that it is me, who does this with my own
hands, I will be insulted.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
> 1. Person 'A' distributes non-free program to person 'B'. Person 'B'
> come to me and ask for help. I reject to help, since the program is not
> free. In this case I suffer from being not able to help person 'B'
> because of the actions of persons 'A' and 'B'[1].
And please tell me, how could
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
> > machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
> > easy it would be to get mirrors for that)
>
> The issue is support. Uptime, package int
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
>>>without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
>>>absolutely non-free - you have freedom to
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
>> 2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to
>> person 'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own
>> actions! Probably at this moment I will decide to cry "It's not me,
>> who put m
Sven Luther wrote:
1. Person 'A' distributes non-free program to person 'B'. Person 'B'
come to me and ask for help. I reject to help, since the program is not
free. In this case I suffer from being not able to help person 'B'
because of the actions of persons 'A' and 'B'[1].
And please tell
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one
> > > machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how
> > > easy it would be t
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:40:30PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Doing nothing is neutral.
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
The "unethical behavior" you've been criticizing is doing nothing when
someone asks for help.
--
Raul
On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he
regards
it as unethical was given. Finally, I don't think there was
Well, slander with argumentati
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > (and heck, you probably could have setup the APT repository for
> > > non-free during the time you w
Raul Miller wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help and
I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
The "unethical behavior" you've been criticizing is doing nothing when
someon
I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with
calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions
unethical). I was free to select another word for this, like not
consequent or irrat
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
>
> I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please,
> go ahead, and prove m
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:45:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:34:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > (and heck, you probably could
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
(because we were no longer able).
we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
GFDL like package for example)
I forgive all accusation which were made against me, since it should be
very painful to think about the case when the work(good work) is
rejected by Debian.
I never packaged or created myself a complete free program. So I am not
the best person to accuse those who work and act on the very high
On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
>> If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
>> is neutral.
>
> Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
> and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't pa
Remi Vanicat wrote:
You seem to always forget that the help B might ask you is to make a
debian package and to distribute it (so he can find it). If it is a
package that can go to non free, that mean that the license does not
forbid you to do it. But you want to debian to refuse this kind help
t
On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation.
Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus c
Remi Vanicat wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't package and distribute non-free package, we act in a
non-ethic
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:42:27AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Yes, but if we reject to distribute non-free because we are busy with
> creating a free replacement or with working on/packaging of other free
> software we are acting in very ethical way without necessity to compel
> oursel
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:42:27AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Yes, but if we reject to distribute non-free because we are busy with
creating a free replacement or with working on/packaging of other free
software we are acting in very ethical way without necessity to
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's
> > > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten
> > > years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
> > What's this "we" ? Please s
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:51AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >I think that should be a per-developer decision, not something for the
> >social contract.
> There is a problem with changing Social Contract in the way which will
> hurt any developer which already agree
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this g
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Remi Vanicat wrote:
>>>
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we wi
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
[...]
I presented a good example how Debian compels himself to non-etchical
action by distri
On 2004-01-13 12:38:57 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 stat
On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dealing with a different
BTS. etc. Especially since it's all con and no p
On 2004-01-13 13:50:00 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's relevant to whether it's moral or not to remove someone else's
non-free package.
Again, that wasn't quite the question.
Is there some reason you quote material out of context? Do you not
understand what you read?
Context wa
On 2004-01-18 18:53:41 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. [...]
No it doesn't. It merely impedes it. I think this is the root (canal?)
of your argument's problems.
And adding entries to /etc/apt/sources.list grants other people
root access to y
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
>> must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
>> action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?
>> [...]
>
> I presented a good exa
Please obey the Mail-Followup-To header.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm glad that you aggree that some things are better not in the
> project's hosting.
I didn't say nor imply that. There are certainly some things we cannot
host at all for one reason or anything.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>So what were you calling a major PITA to our users, then?
> >Lots of it. Dealing with a new archive. Dea
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>Did someone say 124 developers had packages in non-free? That's not
> >>>an insignificant portion of our developers, you know.
> >>"insignificant" is a noise word unless you define what you see as
> >>significant.
> >Well I don't conside
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This is an update to my previous proposal to address some of the
criticisms the propsal has received. In this proposal, I spell out
in a bit more detail the relationship between our guidelines and our
"non-free" distribution, and clean up the rest of part 5 to f
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:17:53AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted earlier today
>
> This draft replaces the LSB reference with an ABI reference.
>
> Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 19th. Th
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:22:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The statistics summary by John Goerzen on vote (which you replied to)
> suggested that at least 18% of popcon users are using a non-Debian
> source, as we don't have j2re1.4. Is over a sixth a large fraction?
> Depends on what you mean by
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 07:34:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers who
> >>want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers who
> >>think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> The way we are doing it, by removing non-free from the debian archive in
> hope for the upstream authors releasing their software in a more free
> licence, could also be seen as an unclean racket to try to pry away
> their software from
Sven Luther wrote:
I did not accuse you in maintaining the unicorn driver. I said that
Debian compel himself to non-ethical actions by distributing the package
which you maintain.
You also said this is a result of my packaging work on non-free
packages, thus leveling an indirect accusation again
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:20:22PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-01-13 12:35:58 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>So what were you calling a majo
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> if you
really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will
immideately stop saying this.
I think that acting non-ethical sometimes does not make anybody
non-ethical. To accuse someone, that he is non-ethical one should
summarize ethical and non-ethica
Raul Miller wrote:
> > there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
> > if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
> > of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
> > non-free packages are making.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package
> with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help
> people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:45:30AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:06:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The way we are doing it, by removing non-free from the debian archive in
> > hope for the upstream authors releasing their software in a more free
> > licence, could also
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>
>> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
>>> non-free we will decrease the amount
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:03:37PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I did not accuse you in maintaining the unicorn driver. I said that
> >>Debian compel himself to non-ethical actions by distributing the package
> >>which you maintain.
> >
> >You also said this is a re
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
