On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:30:26PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:44:59AM -0400, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > Another important note I would like to make: we have many "old school"
> > Debian people on this list who've thought long and hard on these issues and
> > have more or l
I'm currently somewhat overwhelmed by this whole mass introduction to
Debian politics (something that a month ago I didn't even know
*existed*, at least to this extent), but since there seems to be
lobbying for newbie responses, here goes nothing.
Erinn Clark wrote:
[NB: If you've been around Debi
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:44:59AM -0400, Erinn Clark wrote:
> Another important note I would like to make: we have many "old school"
> Debian people on this list who've thought long and hard on these issues and
> have more or less decided which direction they think Debian is headed (and
> which di
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:07:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:44:59AM -0400, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > [NB: If you've been around Debian for a while and/or have contributed to
> > some
> > of these decisions, please read the bottom of the mail before replying.]
>
> > S
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:01:53PM +0200, Javier Candeira wrote:
> What work is being done with CC? Who is doing it? Are there document
> proposals?
It's barely started (last week or two). Ask Evan Prodromou, I have no
idea what the status is. There's no immediately apparent reason why
they shoul
Thanks, really!
-- javier
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Javier Candeira [Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:01:53 +0200]:
Hi Javier,
What work is being done with CC? Who is doing it? Are there document
proposals?
I don't follow -legal, but this is from the latest DWN:
Creative Commons License Committee. Evan Pr
* Javier Candeira [Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:01:53 +0200]:
Hi Javier,
> What work is being done with CC? Who is doing it? Are there document
> proposals?
I don't follow -legal, but this is from the latest DWN:
Creative Commons License Committee. Evan Prodromou [9]reported that
he was conta
Hi All,
* [ 14-04-05 - 00:33 ] Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erinn Clark escribió:
> > * The general idea of pragmatism vs. purity
[...]
> It is my impression that division over this issue is a fundamental
> aspect of what Debian is today. The basis of the conflict seems to b
Helen Faulkner wrote:
> It is my impression that division over this issue is a fundamental
> aspect of what Debian is today. The basis of the conflict seems to be
> expressed in part 4 of the social contract [1], which states that "Our
> Priorities are Our Users and Free Software".
>
> As I under
Hi All.
Erinn - that was a very nice summary of this collection of ideas, and
well worth a look for anyone who is interested in getting more involved
in, or learning more about Debian's goals, politics and ideas about
freedom.
Erinn Clark escribió:
[...]
> * The general idea of pragmatism vs. p
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.13.2207 +0200]:
> brought up for consideration: i.e., the release manager at the
> time agreed that it made sense to hold documentation to the same
> standard, but did not agree that it should be done via GR.
Is this really a matter for the r
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:44:59AM -0400, Erinn Clark wrote:
> [NB: If you've been around Debian for a while and/or have contributed to some
> of these decisions, please read the bottom of the mail before replying.]
> So, to the relative Debian newbies to the list, I'm curious what your
> opinon i
Thanks, Andrew. While I try to digest this information, two more questions:
What work is being done with CC? Who is doing it? Are there document proposals?
What about dual licensing? Is this something that is encouraged,
discouraged, ignored by the Debian mainstream? (by this I mean the consensus
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:00:43PM +0200, Javier Candeira wrote:
> This is the point that helix touched upon that most concerns me: I
> acknowledgte that the GFDL and the CC with the forced -by clause are
> non-free, but I also think those two projects have too much people-momentum
> and mindsha
Helix, I think you did a great job in starting a conversation for the n00bs
among us.
This is the point that helix touched upon that most concerns me: I
acknowledgte that the GFDL and the CC with the forced -by clause are
non-free, but I also think those two projects have too much people-moment
Uh, I knew I should've done more research before sending this. Let this be
a lesson to you all -- do not send long scary emails when suffering from
insomnia. Some things I should clear up:
* The GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License
* The DFSG is the Debian Free Software Guidelines
* The GFDL
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 04:44 -0400, Erinn Clark wrote:
> * GFDL non-freeness
> Another GR which I don't remember being around for, but basically the
> GFDL isn't considered DFSG-free either to the chagrin or joy of some
> people. Debian has a position statement[2].
This isn't quite true - it
[NB: If you've been around Debian for a while and/or have contributed to some
of these decisions, please read the bottom of the mail before replying.]
So, to the relative Debian newbies to the list, I'm curious what your
opinon is about:
* The impending Social Contract changes
If you're uninfor
--- Javier Candeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been reading about Canguro.net, the
> Telefonica filter. It is a
> "client-server" thing (their description, not mine),
> i.e. the filter does
> not run on our computers, but on their proxies.
>
> That means, among other thing, the list fi
I have been reading about Canguro.net, the Telefonica filter. It is a
"client-server" thing (their description, not mine), i.e. the filter does
not run on our computers, but on their proxies.
That means, among other thing, the list filtered sites can't be
reverse-engineered or decrypted, as US
20 matches
Mail list logo
