On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
> suspect that many of the prop
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
> And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
> software, and they shall be dis
On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happen, one mus
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you cou
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> > Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
> Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.
> What did they say in
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
> deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.
> Were you "deceived" by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle which should be pursued by Debian by not distributing sourceless
firm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A completely different issue is whether we take upstream's word for
>GPL compability, or if we claim that something is not redistributable
>because it contains a firmware blob *and* is licensed under the GPL as
>a whole.
There is hardly a consensus on this, so I expect th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
>> > non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
>> Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
>> processor. Whatever the proje
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I heavily disagree to this change. It makes the text unpredictable.
I support your disagreement for the reasons you explained and also
because separating the firmwares from the kernel would not solve the
problem of making them available to Debian users.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Aug 23, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
> non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
> making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
"Firmwares are not progra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
>require for works that are not "programs" as previously understood in
>Debian?
Thank you for your proposal.
While I was thinking about a different proposal (both wider and narrower
in scope), I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is FUD. Nothing in this proposal says that we will ignore licenses
>> when distributing firmware or any other works.
>Maybe, but you take the first step toward this, so when will you stop ? Also,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
HTH.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would prefer if the term "firmware" would be defined or at least
>> explained in the GR. Something like:
>
>> firmware (data which is sent to attached devices for processing and
>> which is not, directly or indirectly, executed on the host CPU)
>
>I don't object
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If there is a vote, I will vote AGAINST granting a special
>exception to firmware, or considering firmware as data. Manoj's
>arguments are compelling IMHO. In addition, the proposed GR makes no
>mention of blobs, which are binary-only pieces of software that execute
>*i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My understanding is that upstream has not been entirely receptive
>to patches that remove non-free firmware from it. Maybe that's
>because they don't have an established firmware-nonfree project
>(like Debian does) into which to move that firmware?
No, it's because they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Searching OpenBSD mailing list archives for mails matching both keywords
>firmware and source found nothing. Are you sure it's in there?
Well, probably there is a reason if you have not found anything by
looking for "source"... With a two minutes google search of
"de Raa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Rationale: most of us want to release etch ASAP, and most of us want to
>remove the firmwares from the kernel ASAP. This is a way that shouldn't
This is false: most of us do not mind at all distributing sourceless
(or even not modifiable) firmwares in the kernel packages.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Rationale: most of us want to release etch ASAP, and most of us want to
>> >remove the firmwares from the kernel ASAP. This is a way that shouldn't
>> This is false: most of us do not mind at all distributing sourceless
>> (or even not modifiable) firmwares in the kern
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This discussion has indeed been going on for a while. The most important
>arguments seem to be that one side is saying "It must be Free!" while
>the other claims "There is nothing useful in making it Free".
Wrong. The real other argument is "there is nothing useful in mak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No. We just keep providing the official free images. And someone else will
>provide the non-free variants.
Yes: Ubuntu.
> This scenario would reflect exactly the
>situation that already exists WRT Debian as in (free) "Debian" and Debian as in
>"Debian + non-free + even-m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I realize that hardware includes non-free firmware in rom, but I think
>that observation misses the point. Firmware in rom isn't being^M
>distributed by the debian project. The first problem I see with debian
The good old "what I don't see cannot hurt me" argument.
>an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think it is ludicrous to pretend that firmware is not a program.
I am not sure, it's not very funny to me. But it worked pretty well
until you and a few other people started pretending we have been
confused for all these years and actually meant something else.
>Suppos
On Aug 30, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian must decide whether it wants to ship BLOBs with licensing which
> technically does not permit redistribution. At least 53 blobs have this
> problem. Many of them are licensed under the GPL, but without source code
> provided. Since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I think the real question is "How does us refusing to ship non-free
>> firmware help free software?".
>WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING DOING THAT. I hate to shout, but *have* you heard of
>non-free? It was mentioned in the post you're replying to!
I did. And it's not part of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Not for some reason, for some very obvious reasons. They're not adequate
>as an immediate solution to this problem because separating the firmware
>from the packages that currently contain it is hard and needs development
*And* will need work from the kernel team for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
>without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
>images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
>the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian
With this message I formally second aj's proposed resolution from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I deeply appreciate this, I believe it is the right step to bring back
Debian to its origins and hopefully will help reducing the tensions in
the project caused by the SC change.
Still, I want to ask you to re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This may include proprietary kernel drivers and will exclude important
>> firmwares which are not legally modifiable. Both too much and too little
>> at the same time.
>How would you exclude proprietary kernel drivers while allowing important
>firmwares which are not le
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> > accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> > mindlessly following
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No. Ceasing to make commitments we can't keep doesn't mean we should
>> stop meeting the commitments we can. Which is why the bullet points you
>> didn't quote were in the proposal.
>What do you mean that we "can't keep" the commitment to make the
>kernel free software?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> I would otherwise support a similar amendment, but I
>> >> in this form I consider it harmful to our cause.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Prove it.
>> I should prove that Debian distributing illegal proprietary kernel
>> drivers would really be a bad idea?
>No, pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
>Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
>hard to follow that change.
We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admitting that
the change was not appropriate
On Sep 06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >That doesnt make a good reputation, setting something central like the
> > >Social Contract and then randomly changing it back because its ohhh, so
> > >hard to follow that change.
> > We followed the SC pretty well until it was changed. Admit
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > No, it's a contentious issue because some people are trying hard to
> >> > change the values of Debian replacing what was a compromise widely
> >> > accepted by everybody in Debian and most people outside Debian with
> >> > mindlessl
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just your opinion, not a fact.
--
ciao,
Marco
signatu
On Sep 07, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The widely accepted custom was to interpret the DFSG this way, yes.
> > This is what matters.
> What is your evidence of this?
My experience of 9 years in Debian, which can be verified by browsing
the list archives.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have not been the only one to be upset about the firmware situation
>every time it has been brought up, as can be verified by browsing the
>list archives. I can see that the controversy is old, but certainly
>not that your interpretation was "widely accepted."
Wrong. T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
>reduce the usefulness of Debian through obnoxious clauses
>that would also affect people that do not need the firwmare
>in the first place (e.g. by restricting distribution or use of packaging
>embedding the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>While I still believe that this proposal represents a reasonable position
>for the project to take, the discussion over the past two weeks makes it
>clear to me that a large enough fraction of our developership disagrees
>strongly with this interpretation that it's not in
With this message I formally second Frans Pop's proposed resolution from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I start with those two because they're the least controversial and have
>been part of license analysis for long enough that they're in various FAQs
>and in the Wikipedia article on the DFSG, but neither are explicitly
>stated in the existing guidelines and there's always
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A good understanding of the effects (ie, providing answers to questions
>like: how common are such clauses? if they don't happen, why complain? if
>they've already happened, how have they caused problems?) seems like a
>good thing to have before making decisions about the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Marco d'Itri claimed existance of such DFSG-revisionists in
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00160.html
>(apologies for the "fraudster" shout in my first reply) but went all
>quiet when I showed that it looks like non-money fees
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Maybe relocating, but not on VAC AFAICS and still active on various
This is not what I claimed.
>> Can't you come up with anything better than this?
>Why do I need to? Can you show that those DFSG-1-revisionists exist?
DFSG revisionists are the people holding one or mor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So if it didn't hinder your participation in debian, it's probably not
I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a liar or you are just
being stupid. Anyway, thank you for reminding me why discussing with you
is a waste of time.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
la...@debian.org wrote:
>May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
>throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
>it being subject to a plebiscite?
I fully agree.
Also, it is not acceptable for a small minority to frame the whole
debate in the terms
lu...@debian.org wrote:
>In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
>a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
I agree.
>Concern about length of proposal D
>==
>
>I am a bit concerned about the length of proposal D,
guil...@debian.org wrote:
> * The traditional-only way camp: This group outright rejects things
> like systemd, and other similar technologies. Some of this group was
> part of Debian in the past, but found a new home in Devuan. People
I read all my emails with mutt (which I used to maintain)
andr...@fatal.se wrote:
>I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that while I might not
>have thought exactly the same as you in every detail I very much
>appreciate that you've tried to actually show leadership during
>your time as DPL (rather than just being a passive spokesperson for the
[
b...@debian.org wrote:
>I can personally vouch for the fact that RMS can be very difficult. He
Thank you for this contribute.
--
ciao,
Marco
s...@debian.org wrote:
>Free installer:
>
> - will not work with some hardware
This is a bit more complex than that. The current installer is insecure
for all systems which use Intel and AMD CPUs (i.e., with very good
approximation, almost all of them), because microcode updates provide
mitigation
simon.rich...@hogyros.de wrote:
>If Debian provides an installer image, but does not at the same time
>promise to have vetted all applicable licenses against a list of
>criteria that is acceptable to the legal department, this installer
>image becomes close to useless to corporate users.
I *am*
deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
>As I understand it, Debian was affected by the xz-utils hack, in part, because
>some artifacts were inserted into an upstream tarball that were not
>represented in the upstream git. Please explain how use of tag2upload is
>relevant to this scenario? I'm afraid I d
ans...@43-1.org wrote:
>In addition it reintroduces trust in weak cryptographic hashes which
>effort was spent to remove.
While SHA-1 is generally deprecated, it is not "weak" in the way that it
is used by git so I do not believe that this is a valid argument.
--
ciao,
Marco
s...@debian.org wrote:
>Is your position here that if your upstream releases source tarballs
>that intentionally differ from what's in git (notably this is true
>for Autotools `make dist`), then any Good™ maintainer must generate
>their own .orig.tar.* from upstream git and use those in the upload
s...@debian.org wrote:
>Do we actually want or need to hoard all the collaboration history?
Of course: this makes auditing much easier.
--
ciao,
Marco
si...@josefsson.org wrote:
>Can this be substantiated? Using SHA1CD in Git does not necessarily
>mean someone cannot manually create a Git repository with a colliding
>git commit somewhere in the history that gets accepted by git, and
>allows someone to replace actual file contents. That may be
r...@debian.org wrote:
>My understanding is that the problem with this
>design from their perspective is that it requires a fat client on the
>uploader's system, and whole point of tag2upload is to stop requiring a
>fat client on the uploader's system. In particular, it requires all the
>code to
On Jun 15, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The serialization isn't the problem, constructing the source package is.
> Once you have a source package, there are lots of things you can do, but
> the problem is precisely that going from a Git tree to a source package is
> non-trivial and involves a whole bunc
jo...@debian.org wrote:
>We want dak (and anyone else) to be able to say "Yes, DD/DM $x has
>signed off this content". That only works, if dak (and later, the
>public, if they want to check too) have the signature for this in a way
>they can verify it. And not just a line somewhere "Sure, $service
On Jun 17, Sven Mueller wrote:
>1) because it is the job of FTPmaster to authenticate and authorize the
>uploader (and Joerg sees that as "human uploader", which I somewhat agree
>with)
If this were the actual issue then the ftpmasters could just run the
tag2upload server themselves
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> In this message I discuss in some detail five packaging workflows.
I am more familiar with the gbp patches-unapplied workflow: can you
point us to some educationlly relevant example repositories using the
git-debrebase workflows?
(Maybe without dgit, to mak
mbeh...@debian.org wrote:
>I think we have seen and still see with usrmerge how difficult and cumbersome
>the resolution of an initially as simple presented project turned out. I
>understand the answer of Scott directed in that way, at least this is a
>reservation of mine.
For the record, usrmerge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound
>> files, and other non-program type files was "dealt with" by treating
>> them as if they weren't "software".
>
>This is not really true. We mostly ignored the issue, but they were
>always software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
>so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> (2004 vote
On May 06, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
> software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
> isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term "firmware" has become
> customary.
What about flash EPROM
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against
>it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't
>care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is
>even one of them.
Count me in as
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
>> Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
>> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian
l...@liw.fi wrote:
>While I agree with Ben, perhaps we could retire this, the 12765th
>iteration of this discussion, in favor of having a discussion about
>platforms and some Q&A with the candidates?
Maybe this is a good time to ask the candidates what is their position
wrt this PC bullshit.
So ca
In linux.debian.project Ian Jackson wrote:
>For me the answer is: We should preserve diversity and freedom of
>choice, at the cost of functionality. Making that statement now,
>very clearly, will make that doomsday scenario less likely.
We can easily have a GR on this as well: "would you rather
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>Since in practice there is only one hegemonic init system, this is
>sufficient to ensure our commitment to diversity.
Is this pluralis maiestatis?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
aigar...@debian.org wrote:
>To be frank, in cases like logind I would expect the logind binary
>package to be split out and its source patched in such a way to allow
>it to work without systemd running (however badly) and moving the main
>systemd package from Dependencies to Recommended.
It is qui
Seconded.
On Oct 17, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
>should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
>not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to
>win.
>
>I am therefore bringing fo
f...@zz.de wrote:
>for 30 years so why are some people pushing _so hard_ to replace it NOW and by
>something
>as controversal as the systemd stuff.
A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
controversial.
Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributions I
would
On Oct 17, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > A vocal minority and a lot of trolls do not make something
> > controversial.
> I havent found the mentioned minority you speak about?
Probably because you appear to be in the middle of it...
> > Considering how widely it has been adopted by other distributio
svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
>This is incredible, 90+ postings are from the pro systemd people. Are
>you afraid of something? Where do the other side of view speak up. Seems
Indeed, it looks like that systemd users are seriously underrepresented
in these threads:
https://qa.debian.org/popcon-g
On Oct 26, Flavius Bindea wrote:
> if systemd is goinging to be the default I'll switch to another distrib.
systemd is already the default and it will still be the default no
matter the outcome of this GR, which is about something else.
> maybe to a fork.
Cool. Debian encourages forks.
--
cia
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>I don't want to be having this conversation again in a year's time,
And still, I am ready to bet that we will...
>with those upstreams and their like-minded Debian contributors saying
>things like `it is too late now; the world has moved on'.
It is *already
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over
>individual systemd dependencies.
This looks like a great way to encourage people to make systemd
mandatory just to be done with this once and for all... :-)
>That's not the problem. The pro
r...@debian.org wrote:
>Also, adopting systemd has been far from "easy." Just ask the systemd
>maintenance team in Debian, who I am sure are seriously questioning why
>they ever wanted to be the default init system right about now given all
>the work it entails!
Not really, I want that because it
goli...@riseup.net wrote:
>I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could
http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
Thank you for your contribute. Next!
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>... which is the result if one has one's eyes tightly shut. User space
>replacements for Linux and BSD kernel virtual terminals have already
>existed, and been written, for years. There's a whole non-Anglophone
I am not an expert of this issue,
On May 06, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But no, I misspoke. I'm happy to grant the stuff in the ROM is
> software, in one sense, but not in another--it can't be changed (it
> isn't *soft*). For this reason, the term "firmware" has become
> customary.
What about flash EPROM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound
>> files, and other non-program type files was "dealt with" by treating
>> them as if they weren't "software".
>
>This is not really true. We mostly ignored the issue, but they were
>always software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
>so that the entire proposal now reads:
>
> that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> (2004 vote
On Jun 01, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:
Seconded.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [6555 tr7cnnrfx4XGs]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Branden, and the SPI board, need to stop side stepping issues.
>Why are you discussing this on debian-vote? Still?
Why not?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Here are the top ten contributors to the list over the past 14 months or so.
With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists.
This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation.
>People who accuse me of extremism should therefore ask themselves: is
>debi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Assume the demarcated hypothetical scenario to be true for the questions
>which follow.
Now let's try with a less hypothetical scenario.
I'd like to know from the candidates what do they think about a
candidate who, after discovering a possible bug in somebody else's
pack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> With two or three exceptions, all of them are DFSG-revisionists.
>> This pretty much sums up the debian-legal situation.
>Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant
>to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody
>who sa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> DFSG-revisionists are the people who in the last year invented things
>> like the "dissident test"
>search in debian-legal for "dissident test" in 2003.
You are right, now it's almost two years old. But this detail is not
much relevant.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, I think you see it but you disagree whether the directory
>of women or the current list charter is discriminating on the
>basis of sex, and the severity or remedies of past incidents.
Sure, and the obituaries are a discrimination on the basis of death.
--
ciao,
Marc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Though I am interested in being involved in debian-legal, I am turned
>off by Andrew Suffield's description of anyone with a view other than
>his own as an "anti-freedom advocate".
In my experience this is a common attitude among DFSG-revisionists,
like when Branden Robi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This "consensus" has been formed in the small circle of the DFSG
>> revisionists when nobody else payed much attention to debian-legal, and
>> now it's being used to silence dissenting opinions with the argument
>> that "all objections have been dismissed".
>Silence? Ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, but I see no point in discussing licensing issues with a dozen of
>> people who keep saying that they reached consensus a couple of years
>> ago and I should shut up, so I tend to avoid most threads.
>The point that you have to recognize is that the arguments someon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Out of curiosity, which "important pieces of software" are hidden
>by not mentioning or including non-free (and contrib)?
I will add to the list ipw2100-source, ipw2200-source and many other
drivers which have been declared unworthy of main after the firmware
madness.
--
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
