the
document, that inspired thousands to join the efforts, will make
Debian more free, I cannot tell...
Please apply some "common sense" when judging.
--
Yavor Doganov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:35:47 +0100,
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > If I include your personal position about, let's say, software freedom
> > in my documentation under GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant
an.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00240.html
Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting
the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that
particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR.
--
Yavor Doganov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
At Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:09:38 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> >> Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to
>
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:44:59 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:45:42 +0200, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>> No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not* require
>> a change to the DFSG.
>
>> But a
also to be considered free. Hence, the 3:1 requirement,
> to allow that statement to be inserted into the DFSG.
Perhaps you'll never change your position because this is your reading
of the DFSG. But for the sake of democracy you have to assume that
people think different, so it is not fa
At Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:46:47 -0300,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
> Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 02:11 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> > | Everything must be modifiable
>
> I'm still not convinced GPL prevents that. You're still allowed to
> rephrase the copyright,no-warrant,w
ke whatever
modifications you want to your debian/rules, but it will contain a
personal statement -- no problem at all (except some inconvenience).
As for Zephaniah's first example: if you have to remove everything,
you obviously don't need this documentation and it would be much
better to wr
removing GFDLed docs won't make it more free.
The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
lot. That means that I, as a user, cannot rely on Debian's judgement
for freedom.
--
Yavor Doganov
--
At Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:33:54 +0100,
Frank Küster wrote:
>
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
> > consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
> > lot.
>
>
Debian has been known through the years for its excellent support for
many architectures. In theory, a released arch should be as stable as
the common/popular archs. (In practice, it is/was pretty close, which
is good enough.)
This asset is not something to be proud of because of shallow
market
В Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:02:56 +0900, Charles Plessy написа:
> Le Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 03:49:16PM +0200, Yavor Doganov a écrit :
>> * There should be an entitiy within the project to decide which arch
>> gets released and which not
> I do not completely agree with this:
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
