This is a description of the changes my proposal would introduce
to the current social contract.
Comparison of my proposal with the current social contract:
Section 1.
Title -- changed capitalization to correspond with
Andrew Suffield's proposed editorial changes
First sentence --
This is a description of the changes my proposal introduces when
compared to the proposal from Andrew Suffield which I'm amending.
The proposal Andrew Suffield has introduced, to eliminate
section 5 of the social contract, has two major aspects:
[1] It indicates that we remove a number of packag
This is an excerpt of my "what kind of change is this" that I included
with each of my drafts. In some cases, the changes were trivial (cleaning
up grammar), so I did not describe them in any detail. I believe I've
indicated all substantial changes with more explicit description.
http://lists.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:11:42AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
> > to get new machines,
> Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
> more than one machine?
Depends what's convenient; sorry, I w
An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quite a number of Debian based
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are
John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
> re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quit
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
> >wrong.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
> >problem for someone, while i real
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
way with
a single proposal.
The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
cr
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
> >>clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
> >>non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debia
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> John Lines wrote:
> > An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable
> > for
> > endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have
> > machines
> > and infrastructure, to set up a Deb
On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
re-badge it as fsf-linux.
This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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.
The funny thing about the word "insulted" is if you will tell it
to Russian native speaker like me, he
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:24:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this t
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
> >> way with
> >> a single proposal.
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
>
> I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he seems
> to intend a separate ballot for gramma
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
> >
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal pass
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> > proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> > of the social cont
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> As amended:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the g
Let me preface my comments with this statement. I am not a grammar
lawyer, but I consider myself adept. There are a few rules of thumb I
tend to follow when writing bland technical documents and legalease.
1. BE SUCCINCT. Remove extraneous prepositional phrases and color
words.
2. KEEP
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
Seconded as amended.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> >
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> 1. BE SUCCINCT. Remove extraneous prepositional phrases and color
> words.
> 2. KEEP YOUR GOALS IN MIND and WRITE WHAT YOU MEAN. Understand what
> you're trying to say. Don't get caught up in length explainations
>
> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
> > the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote
> > So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
> > while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
> > non-free issue?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:50:36PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> My invitation for suggestions went out in pretty much every
> draft.
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragrap
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what "100% free" means without the
word
"software". "Free software" is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word "internet" (Raul: isn't
Internet capital
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:09:30AM +, John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution,
> suitable for endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who
> already have machines and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
> which only contains main an
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract
> and the constitution.
There was a large discussion on
On 2004-01-22 13:35:09 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
perspective.
Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
proposal.
If you want me to drop those from my proposal, you have to convince
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
> only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less pertinent.
Here's someone else's opini
> > re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
> plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst
> others. There may be cases where debian reg
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to f
> > The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
> > perspective.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:02:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
> proposal.
Why?
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I sh
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:41:33PM +, John Lines wrote:
> Apart from the GFDL I am not aware of any licences which are DFSG
> free, but which do not meet the description of Free Software as used
> by the Free Software Foundation. (and there the issue is the other
> way round)
I think you have
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Software is not narcotics.
Soft
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
>
> What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
There is no generally true answer to this question. The question itself
is about as useful as
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the senten
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
"but not all" is extraneous fluff.
In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the
needs of many users. This is important because of the current
controversy
ov
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
> > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
> > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
> > run f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
> that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for
documentation describing
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you're d
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> >>as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> >>acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Wha
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example her
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example he
Sven Luther wrote:
>> Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
>> nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the m
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:18:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 2. Debian gets program from 'A' with non-free license and distributes
> it. In this case all that situations which will happen around programs
> distributed by Debian are consequences of such a chain:
>
> 'A' produces and _dis
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money that this operation will cost me?
How much do
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:14:42AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring abo
Raul Miller wrote:
The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we
> >>The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> >>which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> >>care about it.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > False.
> >
> > We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 0
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
> Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> all of our guidelines will get dropped -- th
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
> >might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
> There are some basic things, formulated a long
> > Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > all of our guidelines will get
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
> helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
> It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
> Spiridonov and ot
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:22:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > > position". In part
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > > > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > > > position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
> >
I'd like to thank the people who have seconded my proposal. I appreciate
your support and approval.
However, I'd also like people to hold-off on any further seconds for a
couple days.
I want to update my proposal. This update is largely going to involve
rephrasing -- some of which has been prov
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:11:42AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
> > to get new machines,
> Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
> more than one machine?
Depends what's convenient; sorry, I w
An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quite a number of Debian based
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some bas
John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
> re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quit
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
> >wrong.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
> >problem for someone, while i real
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
way with
a single proposal.
The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
critic
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
> >>clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
> >>non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debia
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> John Lines wrote:
> > An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> > endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> > and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
re-badge it as fsf-linux.
This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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.
The funny thing about the word "insulted" is if you will tell it
to Russian native speaker like me, he will
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:24:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-22 09:09:30 + John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this t
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
> >> way with
> >> a single proposal.
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
>
> I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he seems
> to intend a separate ballot for gramma
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
> >
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal pass
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> > proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> > of the social cont
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> As amended:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the g
Let me preface my comments with this statement. I am not a grammar
lawyer, but I consider myself adept. There are a few rules of thumb I
tend to follow when writing bland technical documents and legalease.
1. BE SUCCINCT. Remove extraneous prepositional phrases and color
words.
2. KEEP
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
Seconded as amended.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> >
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> 1. BE SUCCINCT. Remove extraneous prepositional phrases and color
> words.
> 2. KEEP YOUR GOALS IN MIND and WRITE WHAT YOU MEAN. Understand what
> you're trying to say. Don't get caught up in length explainations
>
> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
> > the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote
> > So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
> > while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
> > non-free issue?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:50:36PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> My invitation for suggestions went out in pretty much every
> draft.
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold
off until at least tomorrow.
This comparison is based on
Raul Miller's DRAFT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Suffield's GR, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragrap
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote:
Well, except for the ambiguity of what "100% free" means without the
word
"software". "Free software" is very specific, because of the DFSG.
Yes, that's true.
Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word "internet" (Raul: isn't
Internet capitalized?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:09:30AM +, John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution,
> suitable for endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who
> already have machines and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror
> which only contains main an
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract
> and the constitution.
There was a large discussion on
On 2004-01-22 13:35:09 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
perspective.
Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
proposal.
If you want me to drop those from my proposal, you have to convince me
th
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
> only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less pertinent.
Here's someone else's opini
> > re-badge it as fsf-linux.
>
> This seems an obvious faux pas, given FSF's view that the OS should be
> GNU/Linux, as Debian currently calls it. Missing from this transition
> plan are any proposals to address namespaces, Origin and Bugs, amongst
> others. There may be cases where debian reg
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to free (
> > The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
> > perspective.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:02:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
> proposal.
Why?
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I sh
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:41:33PM +, John Lines wrote:
> Apart from the GFDL I am not aware of any licences which are DFSG
> free, but which do not meet the description of Free Software as used
> by the Free Software Foundation. (and there the issue is the other
> way round)
I think you have
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best rega
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Software is not narcotics.
Soft
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
>
> What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
There is no generally true answer to this question. The question itself
is about as useful as
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is
only a noun. So, the most correct may be "Internet-connected"
I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence les
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
"but not all" is extraneous fluff.
In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the
needs of many users. This is important because of the current
controversy
over non
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
> > non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
> > offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
> > run f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> A non-Debian layman would possibly say that "docs you can't modify
> that are intended to be free for use are still OK to use" - thus:
I can see that for certain kinds of standards documents, but not for
documentation describing
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you're doing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> >>as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> >>acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Wha
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
