Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be
As dicussion follows, I decided to formalize a proposal for a real
declassification of the content on -private.
As I said before, if we're going to choose which material is made
public, we can't call it "declassification".
The main points are:
1) Everything except financial information about oth
Em Sex, 2005-12-02 às 21:16 +0100, Florian Weimer escreveu:
> * Daniel Ruoso:
> > In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian
> > will seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing
> > significance made to the Debian Private Mailin
Hi,
I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal
about the declassification.
In this discussion, two points were made clear to me:
1) It would be really nice to have the d-p archives available to those
who want to understand better how debian works, and from this
pers
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> >
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 01:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I hope this is closer to a consensus...
> Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second class of people --
> those who we want to sign NDA'
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> &
Em Sex, 2005-12-09 às 00:49 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:24:52AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > There's a lot of personal information inside debian-private,
> There is? I got 36 of 494 messages (7%) for the month I did, with an
> additional 55 o
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 20:30 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to
> > do
> > - to establish a position statement stating that
> > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was proble
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > If you do not have any access to my encrypted or "chmod -r" copy, then
> > I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
> Really. If you maintain a copy of a GF
Em Qua, 2006-01-25 às 10:35 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm escreveu:
> Some people want to have one big GR with all the options on it.
> Other people (like me) think it's better to have two separate GRs:
> * one to decide if GNU FDL is free or not and
> * one to decide how we should explain ou
Em Ter, 2006-01-31 às 16:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> invariant sections with offensive material give us a similar example
> -- documents that contain such invariant section would also be
> non-free.
The problem is using one thing as media for unrelated stuff. As most
people would just rem
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane
in
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 20:12 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If the invariant sections are unreasonably long then I'd agree the
> document is non-free. However some developers object even short
> invariant sections.
It has nothing to do with the size of the invariant section (and indeed,
GFDL do
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:13 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker escreveu:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
> > buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, bu
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:00 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting
> the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that
> particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR.
Well, it has been argued
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
> > non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it,
> > therefore, it's a
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:33 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > This was what I tried to show you, not the opposite. My interpretation
> > of DFSG3 is guided by freedom 1, which says "adapt it to your needs"
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 12:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I must remeber that, in this case, you're not letting the user judge if
> > something fits or not to his needs.
> > This breaks freedom 1[1],
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 01:09 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa escreveu:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> > Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> > GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consi
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 18:49 +, Stephen Gran escreveu:
> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> > > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> > > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would be
> > > GPL with
Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:42 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> What I wrote was the following: if your modifications solve some real
> need, not just your whims, then your modifications are usefull and
> freedom 3 gives you the right to distribute them.
It's quite hard to read that freedom 3 is mor
Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you
> would say that a license with such clause is non-free.
I still don't know why you think this GPL clause has something to do
with invariant sections...
GPL only says: "to pri
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 02:11 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> | Everything must be modifiable
I'm still not convinced GPL prevents that. You're still allowed to
rephrase the copyright,no-warrant,where-is-the-license notices and to
present it in a way that fits to your needs. It doesn't force you to
Em Qui, 2006-02-09 às 21:18 -0500, Christopher Martin escreveu:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG.
And so to remove it... If it's a judgement for one side, it's a
judgement for the other...
> Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that
Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
> grateful.
Hmmm... I
Hi,
As I understand Debian's view on Free Software did not change, and as
the firmware split is, indeed, an unsolved question, I think a more
honest position would be to accept that we couldn't deal with the
firmware issue in the timeframe for etch.
As the question itself seems quite immature (in
s part of Debian Etch, without further conditions.
Seconded.
Daniel Ruoso
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qui, 2006-08-31 às 09:19 +0100, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> Qua, 2006-08-30 às 23:06 +0200, Frederik Schueler escreveu:
> > So, we propose this GR:
> >
> > 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> > community (Social Contract #4);
> >
Qui, 2006-09-21 às 10:08 +0200, Loïc Minier escreveu:
> There's always None of the above, but I am pissed enough by the
> attitude of some developers that I want to reaffirm support for the
> elected DPL whatever he does to suppose Debian outside of the project.
>
> (The text of the proposal i
Debian Etch,
> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.=20
> `
I second this proposal.
Daniel Ruoso
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
Em Ter, 2005-11-15 às 12:08 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> I think the easiest way to do that is to adopt an approach similar to that
> of governments that deal with classified documents; that is by setting a
> specific time after which -private posts will be required to be considered
> for decla
w (Manoj's changes, no comment on original)
>Daniel Ruoso (original preferred over Manoj's changes)
> Five's enough to second a proposal, but only if they all second the same
> one :)
I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
I cons
Em Sex, 2005-11-18 às 16:09 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ---
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Pri
Just to formalize what I've already said...
I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
against it is that people didn't expect to have it's private posts
revealed.
--
Thus, I propose that the Debi
Em Sáb, 2005-11-19 às 12:29 +1000, Anthony Towns escreveu:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > --
> > Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
> > defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
Em Seg, 2005-02-28 às 06:29, Helen Faulkner escreveu:
> We would therefore like to call for suggestions for questions to be put
> to the candidates during the debate. We hope to be able to choose a set
> of questions which reflect the concerns and interests of Debian
> Developers in general.
Ok,
Em Qua, 2005-03-09 às 17:07, Amaya escreveu:
> When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening,
> hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of
> gender issues.
I would like to remember everybody the mencal flamewar (one of the most
stupid flamewars I hav
For those who are tired of pressing page up/page down to understand the
listing... a s/Option \d/$candidates[$1]/ge is helpfull...
Branden Robinson defeats Mathew Garrett by ( 248 - 220) = 28 votes.
Anthony Towns defeats Mathew Garrett by ( 244 - 221) = 23 votes.
Mathew Garrett defeats Angus
39 matches
Mail list logo
