Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

Christopher Martin wrote: > Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage > of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that > there was no inconsistency. If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1 requirement ha

Re: For those who care about the GR

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG, > > one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time. > > I'm not convinced the c

A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Anton Zinoviev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example > you are welcome to share it with us. :-) I don't recall the following example being brought up. Let's assume a manual, written by

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you > are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own > copy. Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the permission of the copyright holder. In some countries t

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't. [snip] > it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a > foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY > IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.

Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill

Craig Sanders wrote: > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only. No, it does not. Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added: > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed > in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution > of "patch files" with the

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

Craig Sanders wrote: > if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into > the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document > along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or > a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the requir

Re: Anton's amendment

I'm pretty sure that I am not able to give that modified version to my neighbor. [0] Anthony DeRobertis, "A new practical problem with invariant sections?". Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00568.html> > > Anton Zinoviev &g

Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill

Craig Sanders wrote: >>>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed >>>in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution >>>of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying >>>the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT >>>DISTRIBUTI

Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections > present All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least: * [4D, 4E] Copyright statements * [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled "History" * [4F] The permission notice, whic

Re: Call for votes for the Debian Project Leader Election 2006

martin f krafft wrote: >True. But I, for one, have my MUA set to honour M-F-T before R-T >though. > > Doesn't 'r' use reply-to and 'L' use Mail-Followup-To? [headers indicate he's using Mutt] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA

Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG

Josselin Mouette wrote: Following the result to GR 2006-001, the following modifications will be made to the Debian Free Software Guidelines: Let's not make a bad situation worse. These two modifications would, I think, open a large enough hole in the DFSG to drive a MS EULA through. At th

Re: Donations

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The point of the exercise is to avoid having so many organizations and > so many bank accounts that we would need three professional accountants > just to keep track. Perhaps I should have worded it as 'no more than one > such organization shall be active per country'; [...

Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing

On November 30, 2019 10:32:11 PM UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >I have removed the proposal from the page. I'm not sure that is the >best thing to do. I think it'd be a little clearer to replace its title and text with "(withdrawn)" or similar, then it'll be clear the missing letter is not a mist

Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies

On December 7, 2019 7:26:14 PM UTC, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > >If we succeed at protecting init.d scripts, it will be feasible to >develop support for other init systems gradually, package after >package. > >Should we fail, introduction of new init system will require either >introduction of nati

Re: supermajority options

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 00:43, Branden Robinson wrote: > Where "screw up majorly" is defined as "not permit minority veto"? > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. Arguably, if the system you have mostly works (which it apparently does), then retarding change serves as a

Re: supermajority options

On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: Arguably, if the system you have mostly works (which it apparently does), It does? Having a General Resolution on hold for over two years "works"? It mostly works, in the sense that we have one of the best --- if not the

Re: Dec 7 voting amendment draft

On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 13:30, Juan Cespedes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:01:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results > >are not be revealed during the voting period; after the vote the > ^^ > s/not

Re: Hybrid Theory

On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 23:51, Anthony Towns wrote: > I can't give a reason for (1); quorums in real meetings are used to > make sure enough people are able to participate in decisions for them > to be meaningful. Since we do everything over mailing lists and have a > couple of weeks for every issu

Re: Hybrid Theory

On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: No decided issues have less than 100 votes. So, suggest go ahead with it: Drop all ocurances of "Q" and quorum from the Consitution. "Votes

Re: stability isn't an issue

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 10:20, Raul Miller wrote: > The most stable method for resolving a vote would always have the same > option win, regardless of the votes. > > The least stable method for resolving a vote would randomly pick the > winner regardless of the votes. > > Clearly neither of these a

Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft

On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 14:46, Raul Miller wrote: > Under 5.2 Appointment of project leader, change item 7 to read: > > 7. The decision will be made using A.6 of the Standard Resolution Insert "section" between "using" and "A.6" >Procedure. The quorum is the same as for a General Res

Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Raul Miller wrote: 7. The decision will be made using A.6 of the Standard Resolution On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:01:48AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Insert "section" between "using" and "A.6" Hmm... is it a s

Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft

On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 12:46 PM, Raul Miller wrote: I'm going to be unavailable (in Albuquerque, NM) for the week around Christmas, Then, let me take the time now to wish you happy holidays!

Re: April 17th Draft of the Voting GR

On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 10:57, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and >results are not revealed during the voting period; after the >vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. "Votes, tallies, and results are not reve

Re: April 17th Draft of the Voting GR

On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 18:15, Jochen Voss wrote: > > 5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we ... > > 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then .. > How could there be defeats within the Schwartz set at this point? Read 5 and 6 together. If there a d

Re: Robonson wins [...]

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 14:10, Branden Robinson wrote: > Perhaps I lost the election [...] Nice try, we all know you won, just like last year, as described plainly in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;-)

Re: Ending votes early

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 06:52 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in doubt", since people can always revote. Well, the current draft says "In this context,

Re: Ending votes early

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 09:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote: BTW, people did revote on the last day of the DPL elections, and the narrowest victory was in single digit votes, ( 4 beats 2: 228 224 = 4 ). If there were 4 people who hadn't voted, then, the outcome was still in doubt. With th

Re: Ending votes early

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 04:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Well, the current draft says "In this context, we ignore the > > possibility that people might want to change their vote." > > > Is that a reasonable statement? Probably, actually, for the reasons mentioned in another message by me,

Re: Ending votes early

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 05:39, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > There is another problem here, which is far worse IMHO. For somebody to > declare that an early end is possible, that person needs to have inside > knowledge about the votes cast so far. The person who makes that declaration is the Project

Re: voting periods

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 07:04 AM, Raul Miller wrote: Since early resolution of the vote seems useless for general resolutions, how about moving that clause to 6.3.1 (the part which specifies the voting period for the technical committee)? Why? Has the vote _ever_ been the slow part of

Re: e-Vote features

On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 09:24 AM, Davi Leal wrote: Does the Debian Voting System allow secure-anonymous voting?. This has been discussed in the past --- please check the mailing list archives. It was analyzed in detail by several people (myself included, though I made several mistakes,

Re: e-Vote features

On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:27, Davi Leal wrote: > Could you supply me any information which could make it easier to me to > locate > the email thread which discuss it?. Sure. It turns out it was in March--May 2002. Here are a few good links: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-2

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 00:45, Anthony Towns wrote: > And, as I've already posted elsewhere, you'll note there's no problem > at all here if number of votes received is twice the quorum, which, > historically, it almost always is. Not almost. Always. Quorum was calculated wrong in the old elections

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy. require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the totally number of seconds. So, in other words, drop Condorcet and switch to a simple majority vote instead.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to A.1.3 of the constitution? Only if it gets enough seconds.

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 11:27 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if turnout is low,

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-| Is this idea abhorrent to USAns? Yep. I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though. Yep, unless you're willing to do something like "either vote or you're not a

List of all votes cast in recent amendment?

Under the Debian Constitution, section 4.2(3), "after the vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast." (This is different than DPL elections, which are kept secret under 5.2(5)) The closest I can find in the archives is

Re: List of all votes cast in recent amendment?

On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 13:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > It has been listed on http://www.debian.org/vote/ Hmmm, of course I'd fail to look in one of the most obvious places. My appologies. > Note that the consttution does not mandate that the list of > votes be posted to any specific

Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

I am not a developer, and thus can not propose this amendment. I would still like to suggest it, however, in hopes that either Branden Robinson will accept it, or that some other developer will sponsor it: In the Robinson amendment's changes to (5), replace "modify" with "supersede." RA

Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

Joel Baker wrote: First, superceding RFCs is relatively easy because they re clearly numbered, straightforward texts which are regularly released. Doing this wiht the DFSG or Social Contract or Constitution makes little sense; We probably won't do things like having RFC 1, 2, 3, etc. as you m

Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

On Friday, Aug 22, 2003, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman wrote: I propose to use a word that won't be misspelled all over the place :) Even in this thread I've seen three counts of "supercede". I'd hate to add that to by daily dose of annoyances. According to m-w.com, "supercede" is an

Re: prize dept

On Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003, at 04:48 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman wrote: Does anyone know what's going on? This is the third on this list. Is someone running a scam with our name on it? Is it fallout from a new worm? Personally, I'd suspect spammer address verification.

Re: [AMENDMENT BR1] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote: > I second the above amendment. Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [AMENDMENT BR1] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 12:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Uhh, I have lost track. I need to go into the archive ans see > who has seconded what, unless someone beats me to it. I based this upon your message here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200309/msg00036.html > B

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 > super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be > used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Als

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority.

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote: But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this? as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort, th

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think you need a better grammar book. I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has

What's the scam? (was: what´s the prize? )

On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 17:02 US/Eastern, david albarran wrote: hi! i want to know what this is about. and if i won a prize tell me as soon as you can i¥m the 50,000,000 th user, so show me the money. OK, we get a fair number of these. So do some other people. None of the claimants e

Re: OT: Re: What's the scam? (was: what´s the prize?)

On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 06:43, Jonathan Matthews wrote: > IMHO, it's spammers abusing the "Finally - a question *I* can help > with!" feeling of low/middle-ability users on The Other OS. I'd guess it also has something to do with fooling ISP abuse departments. If an abuse department gets a compla

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Oct 29, 2003, at 16:25, Branden Robinson wrote: system of [-high-quality, 100% free software,-] {+high-quality works of software and other materials+} with no legal restrictions that would prevent these [-kinds of use. Please don't remove the word 'free' here. "high-quali

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Oct 30, 2003, at 00:04, Branden Robinson wrote: I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means of declaring two winners. In this case, it does. Option A: Semantic + Editorial Changes (BR Amendment) Option B: Editorial Changes Only (??) Opti

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Oct 30, 2003, at 10:29, Robert Woodcock wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be inappropriately defeated. I'm aware

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Oct 31, 2003, at 02:47, Sven Luther wrote: archive with only a technical comitee decision or a simple GR. Why would the technical committee have the power to drop non-free? Isn't non-free is a political policy, not a technical one?

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Oct 31, 2003, at 13:10, Branden Robinson wrote: If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations? Does that really hurt? Option A: Strike SC 5

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:18, Branden Robinson wrote: > I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even > within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote > conservatively. Then we can say nothing besides "that is the will of the electorate." > So,

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority requirements, given my favorite ballot: A: strike SC 5 B: trivial C: strike SC 5 + trivial D: further discussion If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I should do this because A

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority requirements, given my favorite ballot: A: strike SC 5 B: trivial C: strike SC 5 + trivial

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:24, Branden Robinson wrote: However, even so, that means (given): Option A: strike SC 5 Option B: trivial, editorial change Option C: A + B Option D: Further Discussion we're going to get the 'activists' voting CABD and the insecure voting B

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote: [b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*. But would it beat "Debian should retain support for the x86

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 18:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over the default option. In other words, CD was your true preference. [Or, perhaps, CDAB.] No, it

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote: A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be a valid solution to whatever we are voting

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding common cause to create a free operating system. I realize this is mostly my fault, I should not of been so

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 20:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: I guess one function of this (sub-)thread is to try and spread the meme that proposing irrelevant amendments that an original GR proposer is a Bad Thing, and should

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due to people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a technical How the hell would it get dropped if

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:09, Branden Robinson wrote: Personally, I have no intention of accepting wholly irrelevant amendments to my proposed GR. I have now come to agree with you: If we wind up with nonsense like the current BR amendment + keep ix86, then our system is broken. My current thin

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:43, Matthias Urlichs wrote: In general, though, I have to admit that I don't understand what the problem is. A.6.3 ranks your choice against the defaukt option, not against anything else. Thus, voting CDAB instead of CABD doesn't affect the chances of C winning, it only

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote: You should read. Branden has been consistent in asserting that there are antisocial elements who vote insincerely to defeat the progressive chang4es [...] Huh? So far as I can see, he has merely suggested there is a possibility to g

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:49, Manoj Srivastava wrote: No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running for no good reason. That's the problem. Only if such ballots are deemed proper procedure. A.3.1 seems to say they are: Each resolution and its related amendmen

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper procedure? Because option B is an "amendment" of option A under A.1.1 and A.1.3.

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Whoa there. Some would consider that the editorial changes and dropping section 5 are orthogonal changes, since we can have one, or the other, or both, and neither affects each other. I would be one of them, and I think that if some

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote: What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a landslide, woudn't that be a mandate? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the landslide just means people don't want to loudly proclaim Debian's support of non-free software anymore?

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote: How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto? Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the options are orthogonal. So, a very popular option line "keep x86" effectively veto's a less popular (but still

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote: [2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most salient points of both), You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different orthogonal options with all combinations, our ballot would have 16[0] options on it? Add

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote: On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are intertwined that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot. That's really all I'm saying.

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote: Where's our origin? It's at "keep doing what we're doing now". It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution. (A

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Nov 4, 2003, at 13:44, Anthony Towns wrote: Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone. That would, I assume, be the reason we're voting on it.

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Nov 11, 2003, at 19:47, Branden Robinson wrote: Of course it does. Consider: [ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian Swirl Red) [ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Green [ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contr

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Nov 12, 2003, at 01:24, Buddha Buck wrote: 252 ballots ranking 1234 253 ballots ranking 2314 251 ballots ranking 3124 250 ballots ranking 2221 It would strongly appear I misread the ballot results in my last post. Oops.

Re: Rappel pour les abonnements aux listes sur udius.com

On Dec 1, 2003, at 14:32, Peter Karlsson wrote: adding them back until I set up a procmail filter to recognize e-mail from these lists and send it to the appropriate abuse handlers automatically. After I did that, they disappeared from the face of the Earth quite quickly... :-) I'm amazed th

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Dec 29, 2003, at 16:38, Sven Luther wrote: 2) unicorn : this is a driver for my ADSL pci modem, which is in se free, but use a non-free binary only software ADSL library, which even the manufacturer of the card has not access to the source of it. Compare this to many other stuff in main

Re: Rappel pour les abonnements aux listes sur udius.com

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 05:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Mots de passe pour debian-vote@lists.debian.org: List > Password // URL > > I3tv@udius.com ubazku > http://mail.udius.com/m

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Jan 2, 2004, at 01:38, Craig Sanders wrote: I second this, with the following amendment: s/this/Craig Sanders/ ObVote: no, I don't really second cas's "suggestion" i'm sorry, i forgot to say "NOT" any form of sarcasm or irony without such a subtle-as-a-sledgehammer hint is obviousl

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would mean losing much of the current Java support. I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.

Another Non-Free Proposal

I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remove non-free. PROPOSAL 1 - Whereas, the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; ma

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote: Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun implementation, and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them. That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to Debian. Having them in main could encourage peopl

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remov

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 18:00, Steve Langasek wrote: The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. So the palatibili

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? Here are some, with references: "golden r

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century government? Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained a

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote: So... back to the point at hand: a "vote about non-free" won't answer the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't address the issues people have about non-free. Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on th

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote: On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, nothing is _forcing_ so

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote: As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with the resolution but disagree with the rationale. Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future. I encourage anyone who

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. Those people may want to take a look at my al

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote: and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a mozilla based browser. ... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)? and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?

Re: GR: Removal of non-free

On Jan 5, 2004, at 07:10, MJ Ray wrote: Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian, especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type pa

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Prove that it isn't. It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate his assumptions.

  1   2   3   >