Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > > It's my observation that a numb

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Huh? We d

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > subject line. > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves > > examples. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised > developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying > to

Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

I concur with the analysis of the components I have skipped. In all the cases where Raul has included changes that I have not, I think that they are either wrong or pointless. All the ones that I have not covered in this mail fall into the "pointless" category, and are mostly typographical changes

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFD

RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

I propose the following resolution: That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read: Using Debian machines for reading mail is OK, please choose a

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > > subject line. > > > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > > > wrong". This w

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical > to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example > names). The sole reason why these documents have not already been drafted is because nobo

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed). I object to this and cannot comply with it. No developer can control their incoming

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to > > > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, > > > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false. > > > Here you have impl

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:50:08AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Raul has added several strong guarantees of effort on the part of > Debian, which do not presently exist. I strongly oppose these. As a > maintainer with no packages in non-free, I refuse to do any of these > things. The constitutio

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

> > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > >

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed). > > I object

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > All the software in main. > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the c

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" > means "nothing changes" a

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms > > > for at least some of our users. > > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client > > enhances anyone's freedom in any way. > I gues

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in > non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps > this > page can help in the discussion about removing non-free. > > Also included is explanation

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: > > 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read: > > Using Debian machines for

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's an extremel

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace all the non-free software people might want to use with free software, we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free sof

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:44:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > > For practical purposes

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the license forbids you from getting a copy. Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get the copy. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov w

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > We only accepted the LSB on the proviso that it would not interfere > > with other packages - that it could be handled entirely by the people > > who were interested in supporting LSB applications. I object to any > > proposal to expa

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:53:38PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to > > > packages > > > in the De

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers > > 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist > > in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is permitted with al

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to sati

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to > > I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: I ask you to answer, the following questions. One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do, is to do it yourself first. And you follow this rule all the time, of course. I think, it is important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, > > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't > > > > > be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 200

Re: non-free and users?

> > Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from > > the author. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him > from distribution. It is if you can get the software from the author after

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

> > > We only accepted the LSB on the proviso that it would not interfere > > > with other packages - that it could be handled entirely by the people > > > who were interested in supporting LSB applications. I object to any > > > proposal to expand it beyond this. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13A

Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote: Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also distributable without restriction (and more). If this w

Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote: Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free on their CDs? DVDs are the most obvious answer. Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs pr

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

Il sab, 2004-01-24 alle 07:39, Sam Johnston ha scritto: > I propose the following resolution: > > > That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: > > 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to r

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several sharew

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: > > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Last I checked, rar

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem yo

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: > > It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- > > requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't > > seem to have any justification on Debian's part. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

[I'm subscribed to -devel but not -vote or -legal, so please CC appropriately.] > I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages > currently in non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give > suggestions. Perhaps this page can help in the discussion about > removing non-

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from the author. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him from distribution. It is if you can get the software from the

Re: non-free and users?

> >>>Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from > >>>the author. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > >>Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him > >>from distribution. Raul Miller wrote: > > It is if you can get the s

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the soft

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > I propose the following resolution: > > That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: > 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to > > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and > > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. > It's my observation that a numbe

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from the author. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him from distribution. Raul Miller wrote: It is if you can

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote > here. I hadn't looked at that. Thanks, -- Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 + Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been so

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's > > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing > > practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a > choic

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if any, which result from non-free distribution? No, the

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

Sam Johnston wrote: This provides a clear definition of what I consider acceptable use of @debian.org addresses. For the sake of brevity I have not allowed for exceptions like use in curriculum vitaes or on software not included in Debian as I consider them unnecessary. Free email addresses are

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > requirements of the DFSG is simply false. > > > At present it's not a requirement

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> >>> On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- > >>> that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about > >>> our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > >> Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just

Re:Fw: Cok Sicak Debian-changes-request

  GÝZLÝ KAMERA OKUL KIZLARI ETEK ALTI SEXY KALÇALAR http://0ec.com>http://www.erotikresim.com/gizlikamera/small/gizlicekim097.jpg border=0>Gizli çekimler http://0ec.com>http://ww

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:58:47AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Since the DMUP is > effectively a policy statement of the DSA team, would they necessarily > be bound to enforce the amended version? If they wouldn't, is there any > benefit to attaching this to the DMUP? 4. The Developers by way

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't > even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this > - so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful. I'm not sure why anyone wh

Re: non-free and users?

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > >>>No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to > >>>use non-free software; but we're not doing that. > >>So, in your opinion, distributing of free and non-free produce the same > >>amount of good.

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free > documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it > would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing > that the licenses of this docu

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the > > requireme

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such > > standards violations as bugs. > Correct. Violating the LSB is not a bug. I'm sorry, but

Re: non-free and users?

On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns wrote: No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right Thing is evil. Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project not do the wrong thing. IIRC, it doesn't make the project do any extra tasks and it doesn'

Re: non-free and users?

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns > wrote: > >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right > >Thing is evil. For reference or emphasis, I think there are plenty of reasons for voting for the non-free proposa

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Are you sure, that free software have higher priority for your than non-free? Execuse me please, if I abused you somehow, but it is really not clear for me from what you were saying. I show my misunder

Re: non-free and users?

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > If one thinks forcing people to do things is evil, then forcing > continuation of non-free is evil in one way. Continuing non-free does not require anyone to continue to work on it. Every who is working on non-free is doing it of their own

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:52:40PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is there actually a > problem with Debian developers using their debian.org email addresses to > confer false legitimacy on themselves? Yes; see debian-private for the last month

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFD

RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

I propose the following resolution: That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read: Using Debian machines for reading mail is OK, please choose a

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...) > > > > > > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the > > > subject line. > > > > > > Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're > > > wrong". This w

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:15:11PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical > to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example > names). The sole reason why these documents have not already been drafted is because nobo

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed). I object to this and cannot comply with it. No developer can control their incoming

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > > > > It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to > > > > > > > pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating, > > > > > > > but at present the above paragraph is simply false. > > > Here you have impl

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:50:08AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Raul has added several strong guarantees of effort on the part of > Debian, which do not presently exist. I strongly oppose these. As a > maintainer with no packages in non-free, I refuse to do any of these > things. The constitutio

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew

Re: Ad Hominem (was Re: Raul Miller is lying scum [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot])

> > In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down: > > > > [a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives. > > [b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian. > > [c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available. > >

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > > in the Debian archive (including those for which an ITP has been filed). > > I object

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > All the software in main. > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the c

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" > means "nothing changes" a

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms > > > for at least some of our users. > > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client > > enhances anyone's freedom in any way. > I gues

Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements

Niklas Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in > non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this > page can help in the discussion about removing non-free. > > Also included is explanation why

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > That the Debian Machine Usage Policies[1] (DMUP) be amended as follows: > > 1. That the Mail/News section be modified to read: > > Using Debian machines for

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been > > > > using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's an extremel

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace all the non-free software people might want to use with free software, we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free softwa

Re: Voting system stuff, again [Was: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:44:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > > For practical purposes

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the license forbids you from getting a copy. Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get the copy. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > We only accepted the LSB on the proviso that it would not interfere > > with other packages - that it could be handled entirely by the people > > who were interested in supporting LSB applications. I object to any > > proposal to expa

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:53:38PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:18:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:39:17PM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote: > > > Incoming mail is to be used only for tasks related to Debian or to packages > > > in the Debian ar

Re: RFD: Use of @debian.org email addresses

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:14:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The DMUP is a loosely written document in its current form. It also offers > > 'examples of what we consider net abuse', which I don't believe should exist > > in such a policy - rather, a concise list of what is permitted with al

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the > > > > > requirements of the DFSG. > > > > All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we > > > require everything in main to sati

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to > > I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: I ask you to answer, the following questions. One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do, is to do it yourself first. And you follow this rule all the time, of course. I think, it is important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and the w

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, > > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't > > > > > be dropped. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction. > > On Sat, Jan 24, 200

Re: non-free and users?

> > Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from > > the author. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him > from distribution. It is if you can get the software from the author after

Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial

> > > We only accepted the LSB on the proviso that it would not interfere > > > with other packages - that it could be handled entirely by the people > > > who were interested in supporting LSB applications. I object to any > > > proposal to expand it beyond this. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28:13A

  1   2   >