ublished
> by the Free Software Foundation", the Free Software Foundation is able
> to remedy these problems by changing the license. The problems discussed
> above require relatively minor changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant
> sections to be removed, allowing transparent c
hat *would* make it a free license before
we start telling people they need to change.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
pt for dato's alternate
> proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
> is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
> I propose the Debian project release the following statement on the GFDL:
Seconded.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give m
don't think that
extends to dismissing a GR that you happen to believe is inconsistent with
reality.
FWIW, aside from not being covered as a constitutional power of the
secretary, I think trying to stop a GR this way would be pretty darn futile.
If half of the project wants to vote i
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets
er in the judgement of
this project, but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
supermajority requirement. Indeed, if 50% of voting developers are
sufficiently out of their minds (or sloppy in the exercise of their duty)
that they'll vote for a ballot option that contradicts reality, keep
r to the Debian mirror network and cease distribution
> when Debian does so.
Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:05:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
> > you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
> > businesses
r here, or you're being deliberately perverse. Your argument is
equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no
arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest.
There's also a nice charge called "obstruction of justice", btw, for which
pid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and
side-track any argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for
months. or years. and again and again and again.[1]
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, an
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
> > twist [...]
> how long did it take to train you? can you do other t
refore not a substantial
restriction on our and others' ability to do what we want to with that
software.
The question of whether an integrity of author's work exception should be
extended to binary packages in the case of documentation has never been
voted on by Debian.
--
Steve Langase
hink out interesting
> example for a task that can not be solved because of the features of
> GFDL then the same task could not be solved with some other license
> that we already accept as free.
Which license and which task, please? Not just handwaving.
--
Steve Langasek
h word of mouth than
> some appendix to some manual that few people read cover-to-cover.
As a data point, I think I've only ever read the GNU manifesto on the FSF
website, not in any of their manuals. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
D
free, which is effectively what all license debates on
debian-legal amount to. Of course the fact that documentation with
invariant sections has been in the archive for years, apparently below the
radar, makes it more difficult for us as a community to sort out whether
this is a "new&quo
g them *with proper amendment of
the attribution*, constitutes putting "other words in the author's mouths"
[sic]. Kindly put your inflatable strawman back in the closet.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
eed to advertise *anything* in order to use, modify, or copy
software; the advertising clause only comes into effect when you choose to
advertise, in a particular way.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, an
quire the notice to be retained in
any particular form; just that it be "print[ed] or display[ed]" when the
program is started for interactive use.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
passes the letter of the
DFSG, it must be ok for main", so I don't see how providing your own
interpretation of the DFSG that allows a hypothetical license Debian has
never considered to pass the patch clause really does anything to support
your thesis.
--
Steve Langasek Give
tractive, but this isn't the only clause in the GPL that's been considered
borderline in the past: plenty of people think that a GPL which lacked the
3a option for source code distribution would be non-free, because of the
data retention obligations imposed by 3b.
Anyway, whether you
it does exist.
And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote
on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was
representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about
issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to
nauseating enough to see it come
through my mailbox the first time.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. What good is an implicit grant of permission under copyright law?
It's probably not an intended effect, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be
exploited to harm us if we leave it unaddressed. (Not necessarily by the
current FSF regime, but copyrights can be transferred, yadda yadda
have no idea what it means for someone to
believe it's true, and would much prefer a ballot option that advanced a
consistent interpretation of the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Well, may
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:59:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this ballot
>
sals as if they'd already won the vote before
> the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to.
So by this reasoning, is the original GR proposal not "controversial",
whereas the other two amendments are? What's the key difference, if it
isn't tha
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:58:28PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > The interpretation being proposed seems to be "the DFSG allows certain
> > > > restrictions on modifications, i
o you currently think you would be interested in
running for re-election next year? Why or why not?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rs to bypass the constitution.
The project secretary is not a DPL delegate. I don't see anything in the
constitution that allows the developers to override a decision of the
project secretary directly.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
nce if you don't believe anything's wrong,
you're not likely to go to the trouble. My question is: what will you do
to inspire your fellow developers to greatness in the year to come?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
Hi Bill,
You write in your platform that
-- I am independent, so I will be able to represent all the developers.
What is it that you're independent from that other candidates aren't, and
how exactly does independence help you "represent" developers?
--
Steve Langasek
Hi Ari,
Why haven't you gotten Zeke neutered yet?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debia
plies from the DPL, you
> or the rest of the team.
Uh, for one thing, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" != "DPL Team". It was Branden's
decision to not auto-forward the leader address to the DPL team, so that
anyone could feel comfortable contacting leader@ about confidential ma
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:01:36AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:45:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> > You write in your platform that
> > -- I am independent, so I will be able to represent all the developers.
> > What is
ople have decided not to use Debian because of our
> (seemingly) slow development. Stable point releases are a nice touch to
> get a bit of trust back.
Huh? We had point releases on a more or less regular basis throughout
sarge's release cycle. Why would the existence of sar
D_ the direct question asked by Joey.
> > > Will you think questions as "not needing a reply" as a DPL as well?
> > Like I said, I didn't think it needed a reply.
> Am I the only one who sees this as a misconception of epic proportions?
Living in a world where one
ystem aren't specific to multiarch (obviously -- since multiarch hasn't
actually happened yet, and we've been having problems building glibc on
voltaire since last year). Multiarch just happens to be (IMHO) the best
technical approach to building extra packages for targets such as ppc64.
--
o fire them. I cautioned that delegation was only relevant to
improving the functioning of these teams if the plan was to replace the
current team members.
Ultimately, though, it seems we in fact *don't* want to fire these teams,
since this GR didn't come to pass.
--
Steve Langasek
ach to
libraries is pretty lousy and shouldn't be expanded given that multiarch is
on the horizon.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s beliefs would be grounds for
another ban. Since then, you've been a participant in the channel for quite
some time without incident. Should I be considering this mailing list post
of yours a retraction?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian D
me if I'm wrong.
There is no release-critical need for them. I think it would be nice if the
project had a 64-bit ppc porter machine, though, so that maintainers/NMUers
of such 64-bit lib packages could test and debug when necessary.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
ieve that a DPL team can be effective and successful if they are
> provided with incorrect information?
Could you explain why the last two lines quoted are relevant to your
question? They don't look particularly relevant to me.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
DPL
> team compared to your other roles in Debian?
Pretty low. I made it clear last year that my participation was conditional
on the understanding that it was likely to be the first thing I'd cut if I
found myself overcommitted.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
7;s Developers are eligible for contributing
> membership in SPI by virtue of their status as Developers.
and should be clearly marked as part of the changes.
Seconded, if you approve this editorial change to the GR. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long eno
ecision of the Release Team to require works such as
images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without
requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
==
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
> > been: what do the DFSG require for works that
don't see any point in tying
this GR to a DFSG amendment unnecessarily.
OTOH, if you think people -- either Debian developers or others in the
community -- will be confused into thinking this GR means closed userspace
tools are also ok, then by all means please tell me where you think the
ambiguitie
says nothing about firmware
or source code.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
l. With that change made, I would encourage you to
propose the above as a formal amendment -- I would reject the amendment, of
course, since it doesn't agree with my views on the matter, but I think it's
a viewpoint that deserves to be represented on the ballot.
--
uld call on the
Project Secretary to exercise his authority to keep these two proposals on
separate ballots to avoid prejudicing the outcome in favor of a "watered
down" option.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Develop
ur proposed amendment falls on the
other side of this line, where you would have us define "program" to mean
one thing now and something else later.
It may be that this discussion will lead me to the conclusion that the
distinction between "stating what our definition of 'program&
Hi Florian,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
> > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
> > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some
> > d
re the project sits on the question.
b) if it's the consensus view of the project that "program" does encompass
firmware, then I think allowing sourceless firmware into main for etch
requires overriding the DFSG, which I believe is best done with a formal
amendment to the DFSG or at lea
ight now, I don't see any evidence that
> refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything other than cost us
> users without providing any extra freedom.
AFAICS, there has never been a debate about whether to ship non-free
firmware, only about where to ship it. If not having
eral, it only states that sourceless firmware is permitted.
Whether you consider sourceless firmware to be non-free or not, changing
"sourceless" to "non-free" is a change of scope.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Develo
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:30:31PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
> >
> > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
> > users acc
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:25:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:24:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:16:42 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > A position statement tells the wider community, not just Debian's
> > own developers, Debian's views on a subject.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR that
> > consist of this same draft with point #4 stric
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:25:49 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the sa
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
> > > sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is
hat
voters have the opportunity to vote on this position statement per se
without having to compete with ballot options that remove one of the axes of
content.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the last time we postpone
> the fixing of the issue and that no further GR should change that.
Why? That can't possibly be binding?
--
Steve Langasek
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:34:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the l
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:04:51PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > &
sourceless
> (or even not modifiable) firmwares in the kernel packages.
I don't think you can legitimately claim to speak for *most* developers on
this issue.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on,
t; BLOBs *at all*, in 'main' or in 'non-free'.
> Oddly enough nobody has proposed a GR addressing this,
Because voting is an absurd means of settling questions of legal liability.
It's the domain of the ftp team to determine whether we can legally
distribute a pac
ack up against the requirements of
the DFSG. That is an important function, but it is *not* legal expertise.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
krafft
> > Anthony Towns
> > Adrian von Bidder
> > Kalle Kivimaa Anibal
> > Monsalve Salazar
> > which makes it formal, afaics. Are we right to move to a vote this
> > coming Tuesday?
> Well, the previous draft had been seconded also by
&g
o
be removed from the release altogether if you do this.
There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-free
stuff to y
ess has pointed
out to us reasons why providing separate free/non-free install media might
be a strategically poor use of our time in the *long term*, even if the work
of splitting out this firmware proved manageable and there were sufficient
volunteers to do this work.
--
Steve Langasek
y written*, or *as you would like them to be interpreted*, but I
would not be spending my time on this discussion if I didn't think it
mattered to bring the kernel packages in line with the DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
ng Debian's handling of kernel firmware with the DFSG; I
would encourage the seconders of this original proposal to consider
seconding one of those other options rather than stepping up to be a
proposer of this withdrawn proposal.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long e
firmware based on their license, only on whether or not they include
source, I don't think we should include such firmware in the exception.
This prevents anyone from trying to add such firmware to etch that isn't
already included, which would be a regression vis-à-vis freeness.
Cheers,
is proposal as a solution that
lets us proceed with etch according to the schedule. Even though it doesn't
amend a foundation document, I do understand it as overriding one, so would
likely expect a 3:1 majority requirement for it (i.e., if it passes with a
lesser majority, I'm not sure I woul
from his as well, leaving him with a GR
that begins with the silly opening phrase "The Debian project therefore".
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > For the record, this is not the full text of the votable resolution
> > which I proposed; the preceding text was pr
ncludes the
full original mail body from each of the proposers; well, this is at least
an improvement over the previous state of affairs in that it is no longer
excluding parts of the proposed resolution, but it also seems Manoj is being
deliberately perverse in claiming that Don's B
> > to exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed
> > and seconded as part of that resolution.
> Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
> resolution -- their lies the crux of the disagreement.
Yes, I wholeheartedly disagree with the
of abusing his position to at the same time
claim he's "running" an organization that he doesn't claim to run :-)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
my name on a release of etch
that includes sourceless firmware without first getting a statement from the
project that this is the right thing to do, and *why* this is ok if it
contradicts the current DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Deve
quite frankly find that to be an insane position to
hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to
serve Debian in a delegate capacity.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
thing like that? Otherwise, per the recent
polls, this doesn't seem to reflect the priorities of the Debian community?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
remember, that debian was at the base, and
> still is to a mesure, a system where those who do the work get to do the
> decision, so you know what you have to do if you want those firmwares not to
> be in main :)
Well, all /I/ have to do to keep the reintroduced firmware blobs from being
it any obligation to cut corners, make particular package
decisions that favor the donors, or even to release on schedule if the RMs
determine that this is not the correct technical decision at the time.
So as far as conflicts of interest are concerned, I don't see one here.
--
St
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:55:59PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean
> > having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in ou
ks in general, both those that we distribute
> and those we do not.
And with my original proposal withdrawn, is it still your opinion that this
resolution warrants a vote of its own?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian D
or delay us from moving forward with the
(IMHO more important) vote on the question of an exception for etch.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, you also agree that we need to :
> 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
> 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
What? *Neither* of these is the subject of Don's resoluti
I don't want this
GR to be a *mandate* that the release team allow firmware under clearly
non-free licenses into main for etch.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[E
y the installer, then I can expect you to be suitably ashamed
of having blamed the debian-installer team for all the delays, right?
Then again, I guess the difference between "sourceless" and "non-free" is
"just words", and I shouldn't expect you to
, and
> > | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of 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.
> > `
> I accept the amendment.
An
l have to go again anyway, so ...
As we've discussed on IRC, 4 of the 6 firmware blobs reintroduced in 2.6.18
apparently have no license statement whatsoever that is intended to permit
us to redistribute them, *even* in non-free. So they should go away
regardless of the kind of exception the p
ave to come from people
who are *not* the resolution's proposer. :)
(If you did *not* accept the amendment, *then* Manoj would have the option
of proposing it as a separate ballot option and requesting seconds.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
allowed (or even required!) even
*more* bad stuff in main, like firmware that has no source *and* has a
license prohibiting modification. So how do you figure that telling us
about everything that's wrong with sourceless firmware is an argument in
favor of the original proposal, when the amende
s somewhat "strange".
This is a retcon; "blob" is an English word meaning "an indistinct,
shapeless form".
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
, there's no doubt left to
voters that this GR will be used as a justification for adding a bunch of
new firmware to main on the grounds that it's "needed" by the installer for
new hardware.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Deve
ed firmware blobs pending license clarifications, but I
don't see any indication that Sven is interested in understanding that POV,
only in tilting at strawmen; so I don't intend to lose any more time on
discussing this point beyond this single clarification email.
--
Steve Langasek
allow their inclusion in main for etch along
with the others.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To
1 - 100 of 468 matches
Mail list logo
