carefully reevaluate
whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
"agreement" with the FSF.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n in main" before
> long.
Before or after the next renaming of "creationism", I wonder?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sts of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
> saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?
If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can
bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as
an "interpretion", and y
onstitution. Those loopholes
can always be created, if everyone is allowed their own interpretation of
the rules; that's not an indication of lack of forethought.
Fortunately, as is typically the case, everyone is not allowed their own
interpretation of the rules.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gt; works depend on a package containing a rootkit. This way, their
> installation would always comply with the license.
Or another popular argument these days, "not being allowed to put a password
on your machine is just a practical problem, which doesn't make the license
non-free"
is apparently claiming that the old SC didn't
apply to firmware, as if firmware isn't software (a very strange claim, IMO).
Of course, this wouldn't change the need to remove non-free firmware or
GFDL'd documentation.
[1] Oops. Hinted fonts have programs in them. I'm not even sure where to
start on that.
--
Glenn Maynard
quot;
document lays a foundation--transition plans are support, not foundation.
I think putting a transition guide on a level with the Social Contract is
strange.
(However, I havn't been following this GR very closely.)
--
Glenn Maynard
is apparently claiming that the old SC didn't
apply to firmware, as if firmware isn't software (a very strange claim, IMO).
Of course, this wouldn't change the need to remove non-free firmware or
GFDL'd documentation.
[1] Oops. Hinted fonts have programs in them. I'm
quot;
document lays a foundation--transition plans are support, not foundation.
I think putting a transition guide on a level with the Social Contract is
strange.
(However, I havn't been following this GR very closely.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
9 matches
Mail list logo
