Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

2006-01-25 Thread Jeff Carr
On 12/31/2005 09:02 PM, Anthony Towns wrote: > The major conflicts are: > > (2.1) Invariant Sections > > The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections > that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation > in future. Modifiability is, however, a f

Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?

2006-10-19 Thread Jeff Carr
On 10/17/06 15:06, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO. > > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that > you're not a lawyer. I agree. Out of curiosity, I

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

2008-10-24 Thread Jeff Carr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for By who? There is no standard. > The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however, As you know, there are developers with

Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

2008-10-24 Thread Jeff Carr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:43, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to add that I'm not opposed to changes in our membership > policy. But those changes could fundamentally change our project, and I > believe that it's important that there's a lot of discussion about it, There hav

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

2008-10-25 Thread Jeff Carr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 22:22, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It should not take us an indefinite time to release with > firmware blobs gone. I'll stake my reutation that the period involved > is not indefinite, and there is a upper boundary to it. > >Testing out th

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

2008-10-26 Thread Jeff Carr
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware > can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't refer > to it as "Debian", but they can use the project's resources to b

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

2008-10-27 Thread Jeff Carr
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :) > code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it. So what was > your point again? B