Ian Jackson wrote:
> Also,
>> (4) How can this be fixed?
>
> This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
> should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
> GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: "License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (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 fundamental requirement of the
> DFSG, which states:
>
ust me, if it passes, I will use
the same argument to get xsnow into main, since the author probably didn't
intend to restrict modification.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
onsidering it
> as a bug)?
Yes.
> or just to the copies you distribute...
No.
>
> I mean, I know the license says "the copies you make or distribute",
> but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?
No. And there's the problem
o what those of us who have actually bothered to take a close
look at the license agree on. I'm still in NM, so I request that some DD
propose this.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of effici
ose.
Many of us care very strongly about this freedom. This freedom is one of the
primary reasons why free software has been successful. Licenses which deny
or severely restrict this freedom must IMNSHO be considered non-free. The
major limits it places on this freedom are the fundamental
Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
> won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
> proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is to
the parliament not to be so
> damn silly, and to follow his interpretation of the constitution, or
> else. This usually ends badly for all concerned.
So with no courts, that's the only alternative, then? :-(
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, or Dedications.
That's clearly what the author meant, and that's clearly not what the GR says.
Note how similar this situation is to the GFDL's DRM clause and
opaque/transparent clauses, which clearly do not say what the author meant.
Those ex
If Debian decides that the GFDL is not a "free software" license, then it is
*agreeing* with the FSF. On that one point.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
-- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution
http://www.ca
UGE* issue. Consider, for example, some famous derivative works of the
Declaration of Independence: the Declaration of Sentiments and the
Declaration of the Rights of Man. Good thing the Declaration of Independence
was freely licensed.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"(
text. It's a
tenable position, though I don't agree with it.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html
--
To
pers? Really?
I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers
don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact
that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two
positions is being pushed by the amendmen
actually does start talking about enforcing the GFDL on a work in a
literalistic way which includes all the restrictions we find unacceptable,
Debian *will* remove that work. Which is what really matters. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make sure your vote will count
ecure, and fast. That sort of work is what I'm especially good at. I could
start an alioth project for "keyring-manangement-scripts" if anyone else is
interested in working on this.
Hmm, this is going off topic for -vote Replies to -devel please.
--
Nathanael Ner
ply to
firmware, defined as ."
I would strongly oppose such a change, but it would be a legitimate,
reasonable GR (requiring 3:1 supermajority of course).
In contrast, clause 4 of Steve Langasek's proposal is a backhanded and
not very forthright way of trying to change the DFSG without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Poole wrote:
I'm not going to argue with your previous points, which are all
basically accurate.
> Related to (a), current programmable hardware cannot run *any* CPU at
> speeds that most users would accept for desktop use. However, solving
Oddly enough nobody has proposed a GR addressing this, and Debian continues
to ship 47 improperly licensed files in linux-2.6. If I were SCO, I'd buy
up the copyrights to them from the original companies, and then I'd have a
real case for a lawsuit.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PRO
to firmware loading are not comfortable working on them
either. This is bound to be a problem, given that the number of BLOBs with
good, clear licenses is quite small.
> We want to emphasize that the success of this GR is considered as
> necessary by the kernel and release team for successfu
;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!
well, we are considering doing it in the cases where the firmware is
*improperly licensed*. There, the benefit is (a) not getting sued and
protecting downstrea
ree material onto the installation CDs?
Actually, that would be an compromise OK with me: the installation CDs only
get used the once, and the material would be clearly separated out into the
non-free section during and after installation.
Doesn't address the legal issue of whether material without
ording makes it
> clear that as soon as the kernel and d-i are able to use split out
> firmwares, the migration will have to be done. This way we won't
> discourage the work from Nathanael Nerode and other people who worked
> hard so far to remove the non-free blobs,
Actually, the on
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> Debian needs to make a decision on how it will deal with this legal
>> minefield. That is higher priority than the entire discussion going on
>> right now, because it determ
derivative of both the firmware
and the other parts of the kernel. Simply putting files side by side is
mere aggregation -- what's happening with the drivers and firmware might be
mere aggregation, but nobody can be sure until a court case happens.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
e from a
> "here are the rules of data freedom, now i must follow them" point of
> view, but really don't make sense to the vendor, nor to the user. It
> seems like an all-or-nothing approach.
Well, if you don't realize that non-free exists to make exactly this
compro
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:47:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer will give you all the links
> you want, but for the lazy :
> svn://svn.debian.org/svn/d-i/trunk/packages/anna
Thank you very much.
Oddly, finding
ly, people who netmount root and use network cards requiring firmware
loading are a pretty small group. But it would be nice to make it work for
them.
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
We are getting way off topic for -vote.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Actually, letting an overworked team of four with (to my knowledge) zero
>> legal expertise settle questions of legal liability is pretty absurd too.
>
> They are the team respon
ying to get a legal opinion from SPI's lawyer. We can't. The
previous DPL and other people of "authority" in Debian have been unwilling
to change the licenses until we get such an opinion. More obstructionism.
Perhaps you can help by getting me a direct hotline to SPI's
ection/area
> with equivalent requirements.
>
>
Sounds great. It still has very little effect as long as we have no
official position on the distribution of *mislicensed* code. But it
sounds great.
I'd second, but I&#x
an email
conversation with MJ about this; I'm sure he can keep anyone else (such as
me) who is interested in the loop. MJ, are you OK with taking lead on
this?
AJ, I presume you will have no problem doing this if this really was a
matter of miscommunication. Sorry I'm so irritable.
Oh. Please feel free to forward my comments to the SPI lawyer, too.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Actually, this is what is wrong with the polls at the debian user forums
>> which AJ pointed people to. Etch can release on time either free (with
>> less hardware support) or non-fre
Diverting to -legal.
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48:35AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Sven Luther wrote:
>> > Yeah, that is something which is needed. We need someone to go over
>> > larry's list, which i have copiedto the debian wiki, and
p-or-down, yes-or-no, clear decision to the
wink-and-nod business.
While I'm not a DD, if anyone wants help drafting a GR to amend the Social
Contract to *clearly allow* some particular thing which I consider non-free,
I will be happy to help. I want such an amendment to be as crystal clear
from CD or floppy or USB stick. If your USB stick needs
non-free firmware to run, you need to netboot or boot from CD or floppy or
hard drive. If your floppy drive needs non-free firmware to run (really
only possible if it's connected to, say, a SCSI card which needs such
firmware), th
t implied that in some cases it was not for valid reasons.
Yes, definitely adds emotive content for no good reason.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
ith 2.6.17 and later, no need to
> remove the drivers.
Rocking.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ecially since there was a link to the vote page.
>
> Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what
> this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals?
It was pretty clear, but "Amend the Constitution (assets handling)" would
have been better. Just in case so
document right now.
Anyone know where it is?
Maximizing the number of systems which can be supported with the
standard d-i image plus an additional disk/net repo/etc is still a good
idea, which is why I'm working on it, and it's 90% done already.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTE
chnically it's not a contradiction: DDs can vote to behave
inappropriately. :-) Still, it's poor wording. I suggest the following
amendment to Ian:
Replace clause 2 of third resolution with:
2. The Project as a whole chooses not to express any further opinion on
dunc-tank at this time. T
ect to the point he should be recalled".
In fact, you can do the second without the first -- and you can do
the first without the second.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
cant.
> At this point, I am unsure what to do --- technically, since
> the proposals seconded are unlikely to be identical, byte for byte,
If the above is done, only whitespace and decorative "cut here" material
will differ. Resolutions are identical if they are identical
When you derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble --
> and you modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
>
> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
They are normall
look at the resolution when *interpreting* it,
> not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard.
Not really true, as noted: they look at the main text first, but if there's
an ambiguity, they will look at the preamble.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush a
a GR through.
I think they'll all agree to do it voluntarily though. :-) So don't worry
about whether it's an obstacle unless someone refuses.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in pris
nly
> true.
Actually, it's certainly false, as Branden Robinson has explained
with Supreme Court citations.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uot;seconded" message seconds more than one
> potential resolution.
>
> And if someone is tempted to claim "abuse of power" here, I think that
> it's pretty obvious that the abuse would be on the part of those who
> refuse to participate in resolving the ambiguitie
f heroes for success.
"Culture of people who are willing to send a few emails". Yes, indeed,
we depend on that.
Manoj, you're making mountains out of molehills.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why is
Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
> archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
> before us.
Thanks for going through this. I know you had to as secretary, but it
must have sucked.
remove dgrs based on its
uselessness; we'll see what happens.
> without having to deal with the two new GRs a week over highly emotional
> issues, not mentioning the remaining bullshit that is going on beside it
> (RM payement,
> duck stuff,
Duck stuff? Quack, Quack?
I h
rivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h
- drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h
- drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition
>> of "distributable". The usual definition used by d
ituation, it would be best to have a statement from
> debian-legal to back those claims (or to claim i am wrong in the above).
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Yes, I'm not a lawy
This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by inserting at the end of clause 3, in italics:
(There is a special exceptio
I wrote:
>> Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most
>> discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>If that is the case, then why would it be necessary to write this down
>in the DFSG? Personally, I don't think we ne
>Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
>> license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
>> shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
>
MJ Ray
uire the use of a
non-free component, without crippling the system."
(4) Replace 'We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
these works.', the following: "The most vital of these works are included in
Debian, but we strive to replace
Ian Jackson wrote:
>If this is forced to a GR we should have an option along these
>lines:
>
> We note that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only
> under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation of derivative
> license texts.
>
> We do not consider this a problem.
Although
Don Armstrong wrote:
>I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
>specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
>specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
>may be worth some thought.
>
>Unfortunatly, the currently proposed ame
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good whe
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org
John Robinson said:
>another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
>
>450x DAB
> 45x ADB
>
>Condorcet: D wins
>Proposed: A wins
>Amended: D wins
You appear to be making the same mistake as Manoj did, which I noted in
a message to debian-devel.
Under the proposed system (Manoj's), B is
Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think
John Robinson may have been trying to come up with. Consider two options,
A and B, and the default option D. Let the quorum requirement R=20.
39 people show up to vote. These are their preferences (most prefered
on the left,
Raul Miller wrote:
>
>On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
>> In my example local quorum causes the following problem:
>> dropping an irrelevant option changes which
>> relevant option wins the election.
>> Global quorum does not have this problem.
>
>The way you've apparent
>"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the
Condorcet criterion".
>supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD --
>if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They do
It may be noted that my example involves on a fair number of people
ranking A *equal* to the default option.
It's possible to prohibit this, which would certainly simplify some
things. However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to
consider something to be of equal value to the def
Raul Miller said:
>Which makes at least some sense: only 19 people actively approved of A,
>while 20 actively approved of B. Granted, this mechanism only kicks in
>for votes with very low turnout or where significant numbers of people
>don't actively approve of options, but I'm not convinced that
Raul wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal
> implements logically equivalent to your suggestion?
Markus Schulze wrote:
>As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly,
>an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default
>option with the requi
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system.
>
>It's a per-option quorum. That's different from "not being a quorum."
No, it's not a quorum syste
Anthony Towns said:
If you meant:
19x DAB
19x ABD
1x BDA
This is indeed what I meant. :-( Sorry.
Note that without quorum, A is dropped any way, since it doesn't defeat
the default option by its majority requirement, and B wins then too. The
way the proposal is const
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
"approval+Co
Manoj said:
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can f
Manoj said:
>Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
> providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
> can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
> voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but are
> lying to
Manoj:
>I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
> less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
> or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes,
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:31:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Here's a generalized example:
>
> * Q-1 (or fewer) of the voters vote C as the only acceptable option:
> C = 1
> D = 2
> A = 3
> B = 3
> * Slightly less than one-half of the remaining voter
Anthony Towns said:
Fundamentally, what it requires is for very few people to express
full preferences. There're only two reasons for this: one is that most
people don't understand the issue, which isn't what happens in Debian;
Or at least if people don't understand the issue, they think they
u
considered in the cSSD process.
This has proved quite uncontroversial. It does not affect "ideal
democratic winners", only the (estimated) 5% of votes without one.
--Nathanael Nerode.
Comments on proposed wording follow, generally not intended to change
Branden's meanings, but to clarify.
>[PROPOSED DRAFT FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free
>
> We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> distribute Debian operating system
After some thought, :-) I have concluded that it may be preferable to
separate the proposal to drop Social Contract clause 5 from the other
changes. I, and probably others, care much more about nailing down that
everything in 'main' must follow the DFSG, than about what happens to clause
5, an
Anthony Towns wrote:
>What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
>if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?
Hmm.
To remove non-free, but not contrib?
To add new restrictions on what can be in non-free? (Currently the only
requirement for a package in non-f
Branden Robinson wrote, in
>E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
> the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
> orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
These are the axes I see.
(1) Removal of clause 5, so that non-free is not guarante
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
snipped>
Andrew, I love it. :-) Every word.
This is so much more important than "non-free or not". To me anyway.
--Nathanael Nerode
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html:
5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
Should be "programs and other software". Software
the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the
founding of the project; and
But, unfortunately, the FSF releases large amounts of non-free software
(documentation) which many people would consider important. Eventually
it will be replaced or relicensed, but
Sven Luther wrote:
But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
offline ? What about monitoring BTS traffic for those packages
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by the
end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may need a license to
modify works even privately; it's legally unclear.
and the fact that modified versions
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will exist for a long time.
I very much suspect they will do a better job maintaining it than we
ha
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, another danger i see in it, is that if we don't have a a non-free
anymore, many packages which are borderlines, and which go into non-free
today, will be tempted to go into main (well, not good english, but i
guess you understand).
M J Ray wrote:
We make mistakes somet
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:44:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This non-free data & documentation can still be used and even modifed by
the end-user, however,
Not necessarily legally modified. In the US you may ne
John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:50:43PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
What's more, if there really are as many people that find
non-free vital, they will no doubt posess the skill, will, and resources
to ensure that a quality non-free repository will
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:18PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
copyrights do not affect the usage of a document, they only affect the right
to copy and distribute. that's why it's called a "COPYRIGHT", not a
"USERIGHT". what you do with
Raul Miller wrote:
>I'm proposing that we can update the social contract to eliminate the
>ambiguities which encourage these misunderstandings, while retaining
>the the sense and significance of the contract, and without any radical
>changes in the project itself.
>
>Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 10
Anthony Towns wrote:
>How about:
>
> 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
> We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free software. As
> there are many definitions of free software, we include the
> guidelines we use to determine if software is "free"
Anthony Towns wrote:
>Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free:
>remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's
>even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc
>documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly
Anthony Towns wrote:
>The current rules are that programs don't get into main unless they appear
>to have DFSG-free licenses, and get removed from main if it turns out that
>there are some non-DFSG-free terms in there, and upstream isn't willing
>to change them. DFSG-free licenses are preferred for
> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wro
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
>Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
>attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
>contract (as represented by common
AJ wrote:
> What makes more sense? Keeping stuff our users rely on and expect
> available, having productive relationships with upstream and helping
> improve their software, or blindly adhering to an ideal, brooking no
> exceptions and ignoring any negative consequences?
May I rephrase this questi
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
