Anthony Towns writes:
> I think it'd probably be reasonable to drop non-free at around week
> 650 when we're only going to be affecting a handful of packages, or
> possibly earlier, in the case, but the mere possibility of some
> fluctuation isn't a problem even if we decided to only remove
> non
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5,
which is very clear that the non-free arc
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three
options?
Please cc me in your reply.
Thanks,
Shaun
On Sun March
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What, exactly, is the problem with keeping this debate at a technical
level, rather than making it personal?
While I'm happy to talk about whether non-free should be kept or not,
I'm not interested in having a debate focussed o
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:45:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > I think [foo] but the mere possibility of [bar]
> > isn't a problem even if we decided [baz].
> So your position is that we should have non-free for as long as there
> is any doubt whatsoever if there
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
> not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
Hi!
I resist to allow my tamagotchi to dress in Branden and Martin skins,
and answer their questions too... I donot know how longer I can keep him
from doing that, though...
> I have a tamagotchi too! He's called Foo (I have a limited imagination) Why
> is
> your tamagotchi more suited to runni
* Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> One thing I'd really like to see (in apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, dpkg-deb,
> and so on), is some kind of tag indicating the origin of the package.
You mean like the Origin tag that has been supported for a few years now?
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECT
* Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
> * Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
> If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
> understand. Right?
>
> Which
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
>
> If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
> understand. Right
Big.bad.wolf wrote:
>
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good
> > because it's the current system.
>
> I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Sven
> sounded like h
On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th
December.
elfutils is not an example of removal from
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:23:29AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Let's take two examples :
> >
> > netscape : it was in non-free a long time ago, and since the advance
> > of mozilla and the other free browser, i believe it reac
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>
> >elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December.
>
> elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I
> filed bug #221761 after a debia
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:41:20PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Or if it is clear that upstream is not going to change, have the
> > possibility to remove it from our archive in retaliation (as is the
> > case with the adobe package
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
> > of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
> > evident that eve
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:54:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > And believing
> > > that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
> > > quite common,
> >
> > That's
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:04:57AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]:
>
> > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> >
> > Do you really think that hardware manufact
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:24:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 12:04:50 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>elfutils was removed on the request of
* "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 14:45]:
> I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
> to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is n
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
> >that
> >that would put pressure on upstreams of non-free packages to change
> >their licence.
On 2004-03-08 12:28:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yeah, they care only about licencing, and conflictive relationship
with
upstream, not about
Just looking at very recent past, debian-legal contributors have had
constructive discussions with people from the JasPer, Mozilla
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:20:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-03-05 15:53:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah, but wasn't one of the argument of dropping non-free the fact
> > >that
> > >that w
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:34:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out
> > of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something
> > more than a fiction
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:41:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that
> > > you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpo
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:58:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting
> > > > this alternat
On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
packages in general, including project-produced packages and
backport
projects.
And ? Is this a g
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english
> > language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness
> > which is meant by it. And g
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
> me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
You were repeatedly told that this is not expected of you. If you failed
to notice that, I am glad to reiterat
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
> infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
> this being the exclusive way of accessing this ? This would, i believe
> be a very costless way of
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
> clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
> include the real packaging, which is but a small fraction of the global
> time i devote to deb
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]:
> * Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:38AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> > > [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
> >
> > If one votes
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:45:20PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be
> between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3?
Should be 1 and 3. Looks like a typo.
> By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am
> ambivalent about b,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be an asset to Debian users?
You can probably tell that I don't, and that's
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
the Debian project, the GR *cannot* require this. We will try to make
sure it will happen thoug
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
>
> This disregards the curren
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
upstream
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
polite to RMS".
That is a gross misreporting of Brian Thomas Sniffen's advice to y
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
> run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
> the source code for the chipset, and modify it, or possibly make sure
> there is not some
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
> think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there
> non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe
> true or not. But i
On 2004-03-08 13:15:02 + Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I want a proliferation of third-party free packages for debian.
Really? Do you like low quality packages? Do you think the equivalent
of
rpmfind.net (hurl!) would be
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
> provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
> work, will you step in and pay me (and others who use the same modem) a
> new adsl modem tha
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
> but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
> then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
>
> * And
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:59:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:14:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, would you be opposed to have non-free stay on the debian
> > infrastructure, and have some DNS magic mapping non-free.org to it, and
> > this being the exclusive way
On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] I don't really care about negative
effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to harm non-free.
You don't care about it, or you willingly close your eyes
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > What i object to is that somehow the non-free removal proponent expect
> > me to set it up, and no, i don't have time for it.
>
> You were repeatedly told that this is
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
> the remove non-free proposal.
Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a lack of
maturity in *this concrete* implementation proposal, perhaps connec
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:59:55PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 12:31:05 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:39:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>I think that it may encourage improved support for non-Debian-hosted
> >>packages in general, including
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >And not always thanks to debian-legal, which wanted me to go to
> >upstream
> >about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
> >polite to RM
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:01:09PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Sorry, but the time i spent on packaging non-free stuff, this time i
> > clearly see as part of the time i devote to debian. Not only does it
> > include the real packag
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]:
> > > * Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 11:25]:
> > >> Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved t
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:09:11AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > However the GR does not require that, so nobody can depend on it.
>
> As the implementation of an outside nonfree.org is not in the scope of
> the Debian project, th
On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
about the QPLed emacs .el issue with the argument of : "we should be
polite to RMS".
That is a gross
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:19:44AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:56:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Thomas, please tell me, what is the licencing situation of the bios you
> > run ? And if your motherboard has some defect, are you able to look at
> > the source code f
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:33:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also, i would like to know if you (or any other we you are refering to
> here) are in any way related to an exterior to debian organisation or
> company or whatever, which may have a vested interest in using or in any
> way being associ
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > All in all, i think that there is a bit of a lack of maturity about
> > the remove non-free proposal.
>
> Could you please stop your accusations? At most, there is a la
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 13:20:56 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >>[...] I don't really care about negative
> >>effects on non-free software in general in this case. I support the
> >>Suffield drop GR to improve Debian, not to h
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:31PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:08:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
> > provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
> > work, will you step i
On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
software, but I think you knew that already.
Yeah, and what do you plan to do to help fixing that ? An
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:48:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 14:40]:
> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]:
> > > > * Gerfried Fuchs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 1
On 2004-03-08 14:12:12 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
You did write it exactly like that, or someone spoofed your email.
Yeah, remember now. Do you want to see the full caps email from
branden,
where he all but told me i w
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:00:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 13:27:55 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-08 12:33:25 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>about the QPLed emacs .el
On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
of
my debian work. Thanks.
Do we require debian developers to have ADSL now?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>They are drivers for hardware which have the bug of not being free
> >>software, but I think you knew t
On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
previously.
Hard and possibly illegal.
If you mean reverse-engineering the devices, I think even th
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't believe that we're boxed in yet. Even meeting a brick
> wall just means the route became very steep or longer. You mention
> possible actions to fix it, which are hard, but that doesn't mean it's
> not worth trying them.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:37PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
> >maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
> >of
> >my debian work. T
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:41:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 14:24:13 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>[...] I think there are other possible ones, but you dismissed them
> >>previously.
> >Hard and possibl
On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
Aren't you already? ;-)
Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
would have some weight.
If you currently threaten your upstreams wi
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:35:37PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 14:18:15 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >A, but you have no problem in having me do more work in order to
> >maintain my non-free package, which is currently needed for the rest
> >of my debian work. Than
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 13:37]:
> At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
> think you should help to fix that bug, instead of writing to us about
> how unfair it is that some of us don't want to support a bug of
> someone else's driver any more.
Ah
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
> decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
> neither case non-free is removed for sarge, so there is enough time to
> get up a non-free.org if
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040308 16:09]:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The GR is not about the next little step, but about the fundamental
> > decision whether we want to keep non-free, or remove it soon. In
> > neither case non-free is removed
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
> other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
> not to speak about BTS support and such.
Come on, please. On the one hand, you seem to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
> which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
> success, and i have come to the conclusion that nothing short of the
> full foss community moving tog
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:37:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>They are drivers for hardware w
On 2004-03-08 14:49:28 + Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 13:37]:
At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
think
you should help to fix that bug [...]
Ah the old "every person who has a problem is Alan Cox anywa
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:04:08PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-08 14:43:45 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Ah, but i would be barred from entering the US forever after.
>
> Aren't you already? ;-)
>
> >Yeah, but at least the threat to remove their package from non-free
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:42:01 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> like the opensparc one for example. There is also a free hardware
> community out there, as well as free firmware people, but these are
> areas debian as whole, and the non-free proponent in particular, have
> largely b
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
>> One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
>> think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there
>> non-free package and for the (m
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:26:48PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:18:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:16:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2004-03-08 13:51:40 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, Mar 08,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:46:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And BTW, i was refering in me having to help setup non-free.org or some
> > other third party archive in order to be able to distribute my packages,
> > not to speak abo
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:51:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I have many times lobbyed ATI and others to get access to the specs
> > which would allow to write free drivers for those, but without
> > success, and i have come to th
On 2004-03-08 15:36:38 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:10:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
you will be unable to distribute *your* packages once non-free
vanishes?
Well, this is what the non-free removal proponent tell me i should do,
is it not ?
It's
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:03:43AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> You mean like the Origin tag that has been supported for a few years now?
Analogous, but different.
Origin is something which is a part of the package, not supplied at
retrieval time.
Maybe a proposed implementation (maybe not t
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> > I'm a little unclear on how a "first class free operating system" can
> > be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
>
> Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
> BIOS hav
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:40:18PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> That's part of what this proposal is all about.
>
> When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate
> between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or
> 'the non-free component of the Debia
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:58:11PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:42:01 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>
> > like the opensparc one for example. There is also a free hardware
> > community out there, as well as free firmware people, but these are
> >
Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:41:15 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> The main problem is that building hardware cost truckloads of money.
>
> > That's a good thing for our next DPL to do: try to bring Debian closer
> > to free hardware initiatives.
>
> This was already a theme of past
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:28:13PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> >> One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs
> >> think that if Debian drops non-free they w
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:47:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>man dpkg-scanpackages, it's really not that hard if it is about your
> >>packages alone. Limited free webspace is quite abundant these days.
> >A, yes, naturally. From my account on people.debian.org for example ?
>
> If the Suffield drop
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:56:48PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:37 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>
> > > I'm a little unclear on how a "first class free operating system" can
> > > be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
> >
> >
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:20:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is*
> part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the "Debian Distribution",
> it is obviously a part of the system as a whole.
In my opinion, Debian is an adjec
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that
> is in the Debian keyring.
Manoj, does signing with subkeys work now? Or do I still have to use my
primary key?
--
gram
signature.asc
Description: D
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm a little unclear on how a "first class free operating system" can
> > be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here.
>
> Tell me again, what hardware are you running, and what licence does your
> BIOS have ? I seriously doubt it is free.
It
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, but it could. There are at least two free bios implementation
> projects that i know of, openbios, and the other using the kernel as the
> bios.
You seem to think my goal is to eradicate non-free software, or to
never touch it, or something like that.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:40:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> We should all boycott nvidia, as they are the epythom of evilness in
> what consists of non-freeness of drivers.
yes, i would never buy a nvidia card.
>> That's a point who i have never understand in this discussion. Every one
>> can insta
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 14:45]:
> > I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
> > to break that promise?
>
> Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
> nonfree.org
1 - 100 of 348 matches
Mail list logo