Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:45 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> Your sentence is self contradictory.  For all practical intents and
> purposes, "mirrored everywhere" equals free.

May I suggest you go back to basics?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as
in free beer.

(Happily I generally use a language where we have two different words
for these different concepts.)

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 22:03 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> You may be aware that some people believe that the changes of
> GR-2004-003 were just editorial...

I wonder where you learned English, but the wording "Debian Will Remain
100% Free Software" doesn't leave any ambiguity to me. Maybe you thought
it was "100% of software in Debian will remain free", but unfortunately
this is not how the social contract used to be worded.

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> 
> Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??

This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your license by another name and do not
include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the
instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly
different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual
procedure you describe may be similar).
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 18:59 +, John Kelly a écrit :
> If you stop removing RFCs from Debian, you'll still be a crowd of
> wackos, but at least it won't be so immediately obvious to the casual
> passerby.

If you know of an occasional passerby who takes the time to extract the
contents of Debian source packages to see whether the RFCs are here or
not, please let us know. We are always looking for new potential
contributors.

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Bug#442113: ITP: libxml-xpathengine-perl -- re-usable XPath engine for DOM-like trees

[David Paleino]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Package name: libxml-xpathengine-perl
  Version : 0.08
  Upstream Author : Michel Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/XML-XPathEngine-0.08/
* License : Perl-like (GNU GPL - Artistic)
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : re-usable XPath engine for DOM-like trees

This module provides an XPath engine, that can be re-used by other
module/classes that implement trees.
In order to use the XPath engine, nodes in the user module need to
mimick DOM nodes. The degree of similitude between the user tree and
a DOM dictates how much of the XPath features can be used. A module
implementing all of the DOM should be able to use this module very
easily (you might need to add the cmp method on nodes in order to get
ordered result sets).
..
Homepage: http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/XML-XPathEngine-0.08/

- -- System Information:
Debian Release: unstable/experimental
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.20 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6Plg5qqQFxOSsXQRAn1tAJ0VlPVvCHu8wxgsKS7B0/swolM1KwCdGuxN
F++Rg06xUcV7VTzpYlU16us=
=NtOh
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
>> " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>>  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>>
>> Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??
> 
> This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.
> 
> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
> You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
> provided that you call your license by another name and do not
> include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the
> instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly
> different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual
> procedure you describe may be similar).
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

Paraphrasing Luk Claes:
besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to
be able to if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the
GPL text.

Quoting Mirim Ruiz:
What about ... changing the format or structure for
clarifying, or even fixing typos?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6QBFS9HxQb37XmcRAmEkAJ9goi6FU3cRl/xzL32YrhBHltI3lwCgv/9i
8CHcbj26DjNXXB350O9h5cE=
=6HV0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Karl Goetz]

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> 
> > Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> > benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
> 
> We do, actually.  Those users who do show interest in influencing the
> course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
> trolling are entitled to vote.  Others aren't.

What counts as concrete actions?

> 
>   How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
> process.  It's open to all.

NM.
Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete actions"?

If packaging is the only 'concrete action' accepted, the idea that users
get a say *is* a joke.

karl.

> 
> Roland.
> -- 
> Roland Mas
> 
> Death *was* hereditary.  You got it from your ancestors.
>   -- in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Karl Goetz]

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:50 +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
> >
> >We do, actually.  Those users who do show interest in influencing the
> >course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
> >trolling are entitled to vote.  Others aren't.
> >
> >  How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
> >process.  It's open to all.
> 
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.

If only maintainers count as 'users' then the idea users vote is a
farce. it doesnt make the whole social contract a farce.
kk

> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#442118: ITP: libxml-dom-xpath-perl -- extension to add XPath support to XML::DOM, using XML::XPathEngine

[David Paleino]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Package name: libxml-dom-xpath-perl
  Version : 0.13
  Upstream Author : Michel Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/XML-DOM-XPath-0.13/
* License : Perl-like (GNU GPL - Artistic)
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : extension to add XPath support to XML::DOM, using 
XML::XPathEngine

XML::DOM::XPath allows you to use XML::XPath methods to query a DOM.
This is often much easier than relying only on getElementsByTagName.
It lets you use all of the XML::DOM methods.
..
 Homepage: http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/XML-DOM-XPath-0.13

- -- System Information:
Debian Release: unstable/experimental
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.20 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6QFO5qqQFxOSsXQRAlQJAKCbqyi9REZG0R+W01fUhAbzN0V5eQCeIpmU
kWsHH5EZQC4muMb+NaWpcbM=
=0yxx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[MailServer Notification]Attachment Blocking Notification

[virus . notification . service]

Message from SAP's mail system: Warning to debian-devel@lists.debian.org;: 
Sorry, but the mail you sent contained one or more attachments that are blocked 
inside SAP's mail system. Due to this, your mail didn't reach the intended 
recipient(s). For details on which attachment types are blocked in SAP's mail 
system, see http://service.sap.com/~sapidp/011000358700010057502001E/.  Here, 
you will also find information on how to send attachments of these blocked 
types to recipients at SAP. Thank you. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Jeremiah Foster]

On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:


On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:

John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :


Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
benefit of users, then why not let users vote?


We do, actually.  Those users who do show interest in influencing the
course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
trolling are entitled to vote.  Others aren't.


What counts as concrete actions?


Here are some: packaging, documenting, filing bugs, fixing bugs.




  How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
process.  It's open to all.


NM.
Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete actions"?

If packaging is the only 'concrete action' accepted, the idea that  
users

get a say *is* a joke.

karl.


So fixing a bug is a joke? No, of course not. There are so many ways  
to have a say in debian and change the code in debian directly that  
it renders your statement a non-sequitur.


Jeremiah


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OT: modifying licenses (Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom)

[Luk Claes]

Ron Johnson wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :

It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly written:
" Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??

This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
provided that you call your license by another name and do not
include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the
instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly
different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual
procedure you describe may be similar).
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL


Paraphrasing Luk Claes:
besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to
be able to if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the
GPL text.

Quoting Mirim Ruiz:
What about ... changing the format or structure for
clarifying, or even fixing typos?


Please, stop this nonsense. The thread was about the kernel which has 
issues with non-(DFSG)free firmware and a subthread about non-(DFSG)free 
RFCs. If you want to discuss about clarifications of the DFSG concerning 
lincenses, please do it on -curiosa (or on -policy if you want to change 
anything).


Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Micha Lenk]

Hi John,

John Kelly wrote:
> [...] For all practical intents and purposes, "mirrored everywhere"
> equals free.

No. I strongly disagree.

Or would you consider music and/or videos available in uncounted P2P
nodes (thus "mirrored everywhere") free too? I don't.

Micha


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Micha Lenk]

Hi,

John Kelly wrote:
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.

The social contract is a voluntary agreement. You are free to accept it,
but don't expect to get counted (as in being a DD) in votes if you
don't. DDs are bound to the Social Contract. If they don't agree with it
they can change it following Debian's constitution[1] -- or leave the
project (loosing voting rights). But as every DD initially agreed to the
Social Contract there is obviously little probability to succeed without
having really good and strong arguments.

1. http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

So, please stop trolling. If you want a different Social Contract start
your own project or follow Debian's constitution. It's your very own
freedom to do so. The Debian project does not oblige its users to be
Debian Developer.

Micha


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#442135: ITP: libbio-asn1-entrezgene-perl -- parser for NCBI Entrez Gene

[David Paleino]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Package name: libbio-asn1-entrezgene-perl
  Version : 1.091
  Upstream Author : Dr. Mingyi Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Bio-ASN1-EntrezGene/
* License : Perl-like (GNU GPL - Artistic)
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : parser for NCBI Entrez Gene

This source packages generates:
libbio-asn1-entrezgene-perl - parser for NCBI Entrez Gene
 Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene is a regular expression-based parser for NCBI Entrez
 Gene genome databases ().
 It parses an ASN.1-formatted Entrez Gene record and returns a data structure
 that contains all data items from the gene record.
 .
 The parser will report error & line number if input data does not conform to
 the NCBI Entrez Gene genome annotation file format.

libbio-asn1-sequence-perl - parser for ASN.1-formatted NCBI Sequences
 Bio::ASN1::Sequence is a regular expression-based Perl Parser for
 ASN.1-formatted NCBI sequences. It parses an ASN.1-formatted sequence record
 and returns a data structure that contains all data items from the sequence
 record.
 .
 The parser will report error & line number if input data does not conform to
 the NCBI Sequence annotation file format.
 .
 The sequence parser is basically a modified version of the high-performance
 Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene parser. However this standalone module exists since it
 is more efficient to keep Sequence-specific code out of EntrezGene.pm.


- -- System Information:
Debian Release: unstable/experimental
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.20 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6Tb+5qqQFxOSsXQRAvdcAJwKaKNZ0OIoUfx7ua69LdQaLqk75wCeI/QG
NzB/tW8eyNtaJ5a3hGUp+aQ=
=MWjl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> >>
> >> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
> >> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
> >
> >eh? whattabout modification? and distribution of modified versions?
> 
> This is where it gets absurd.
> 
> They're RFCs.  They're not code.
> 
> If you want to "modify" an RFC, you have to write your own and submit
> it, see?

Which we have always allowed in software, even.  It falls under the "publish
it with another name".

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > RFC 1725 is (quoting the text) "primarily a minor revision to RFC
> > 1460", which in turn is (again quoting the text) "primarily a minor
> > revision to [RFC1225]", which itself in turn is based on ideas from
> > RFCs 918, 937, and 1081.
> 
> You can draft derived versions, but you can't distribute them until they
> are accepted as new RFCs. This is a serious limitation in free software

The moment something enters the IETF process, it does so as a draft, and it
is indeed distributable.

Heck, it is *impossible* to creates RFCs without drafts first.  And these
drafts are public, by requirement of the IETF and RFC process.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[paddy]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, John Kelly wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
> > >>
> > >> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
> > >> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
> > >
> > >eh? whattabout modification? and distribution of modified versions?
> > 
> > This is where it gets absurd.
> > 
> > They're RFCs.  They're not code.
> > 
> > If you want to "modify" an RFC, you have to write your own and submit
> > it, see?
> 
> Which we have always allowed in software, even.  It falls under the "publish
> it with another name".
> 

the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional 
restriction.  Granted there are software licenses like that, but are 
they DFSG free ?

Regards,
Paddy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:50:40 +, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:

>> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>> 
>>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>>> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?

People who do, decide.

>> We do, actually.  Those users who do show interest in influencing the
>> course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
>> trolling are entitled to vote.  Others aren't.
>> 
>> How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
>> process.  It's open to all.

> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.

Well, this is volunteer work.  People who are doing the work,
 decide how the work gets done.  While we do pay attention to the needs
 of "users", the users are not the people in charge; they do not get to
 decide how things are done (opening a vote to users would essentially
 mean that by sheer numbers they non-workers would get the right to
 decide what is done, and direct the volunteers).

Indeed, I often pay attention to what is good for users, as
 opposed to what users want; since users as a block are far less
 interested in software freedom than is in their best interest (IMNSHO).

It also means that when I consider the issue of "users" as
 referenced in the social contract, I am thinking of the whole universal
 set of users; not any individual user (and I often use myself as a
 proxy user for this universal set).

So, it is not about not considering users, or even considering
 what users want, it is about who decides how I spend my volunteer time,
 and what, in my opinion, is good for users. Wanting something,
 and having the thing be good for you, are two very different kettles of
 fish.

manoj
-- 
The most common form of marriage proposal: "YOU'RE WHAT!?"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1

> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly
>>> written: " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
>>> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>>> 
>>> Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??
>> 
>> This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.
>> 
>> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?  You can use the
>> GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you
>> call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
>> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end
>> enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU
>> (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

> Paraphrasing Luk Claes:
> besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to be able to
> if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the GPL text.

They can, as long as they publish it under a new name.

> Quoting Mirim Ruiz:
> What about ... changing the format or structure for clarifying, or
> even fixing typos?

Sure, as long as you change the name of the result and call it
 Rons General Public License.

There is also a pragmatic distinction: License textsembody the
 permission under which we can distribute the software; RFC's do not.
 We can't retroactively change the license terms we distribute the
 software under; so hacking up a license, under law, would mean we can
 not distribute the result.  That one point of law makes a critical,
 pragmatic difference; so a Work, and the terms of the licesne which
 grants us the right to modify and distribute the work, have to be
 treated differently -- or else we have no distribution.

manoj
-- 
If life is merely a joke, the question still remains: for whose
amusement?
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:

>> 
>> How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
>> process.  It's open to all.

> NM.  Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete actions"?

Not only packagers can go though NM. It is a measure of
 commitment to the ideals and foundation documents of the
 project, as much as it is a test of skills and patience.

> If packaging is the only 'concrete action' accepted, the idea that
> users get a say *is* a joke.

Users do not get a say in deciding how I spend my free time,
 no.  They can let me know what they wish (that is what wishlist bugs
 are for, no?), and I pay attention to what they want, and what is good
 for them, but I do not ask "how high?" when users say "Jump!"

manoj
-- 
Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude. Spock, "Metamorphosis",
stardate 3219.8
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Peter Samuelson]

[Ron Johnson]
> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
> must get permission from the IETF?

Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
permitted by fair use, or (2) reprint the RFC verbatim.  Those things
are permitted, and those are what O'Reilly would probably want.

What is not permitted is to create an email exchange protocol, or a
hierarchical name record infrastructure protocol, which is similar to
SMTP or DNS, and while doing so, use the appropriate RFCs as a starting
point for producing your spec.  (Note also that your new protocol
doesn't even have to be all that similar to SMTP or DNS for the ability
to cut and paste RFC text to be potentially useful to you.)

I mean, you can do that, but only if you're willing to participate in
the IETF standardization process.  Which, if you're just some random
company producing internal docs for an internal product, you probably
don't want.

Of course, you are free not to think Debian's required freedoms are
actually useful or reasonable.  That's nothing new; lots of people
don't see why it's useful to require source code for software, either.
Fact is, many of us _do_ think these freedoms are valuable, and we
don't like the idea of trying to define little special cases, like
"well, nobody would probably want to cut and paste things from an RFC
anyway, like they might from other documents".
-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/13/07 10:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Ron Johnson]
>> If O'Reilly wants to write a book on implementing smtp or dns they
>> must get permission from the IETF?
> 
> Not if they either (1) do not quote the RFCs at all, beyond what is
> permitted by fair use, or (2) reprint the RFC verbatim.  Those things
> are permitted, and those are what O'Reilly would probably want.
> 
> What is not permitted is to create an email exchange protocol, or a
> hierarchical name record infrastructure protocol, which is similar to
> SMTP or DNS, and while doing so, use the appropriate RFCs as a starting
> point for producing your spec.  (Note also that your new protocol
> doesn't even have to be all that similar to SMTP or DNS for the ability
> to cut and paste RFC text to be potentially useful to you.)

Really?

If I decided that I wanted to "build a better mousetrap", the first
thing I'd do is go read the relevant RFCs.

> I mean, you can do that, but only if you're willing to participate in
> the IETF standardization process.  Which, if you're just some random
> company producing internal docs for an internal product, you probably
> don't want.
> 
> Of course, you are free not to think Debian's required freedoms are
> actually useful or reasonable.  That's nothing new; lots of people
> don't see why it's useful to require source code for software, either.
> Fact is, many of us _do_ think these freedoms are valuable, and we
> don't like the idea of trying to define little special cases, like
> "well, nobody would probably want to cut and paste things from an RFC
> anyway, like they might from other documents".

While I know that a source file is a "document", some of us have
more difficulty than others believing or even *agreeing* that
"traditional" documents should be GPL-style libre.

(That does not mean that we enthuse over perpetual copyrights or
restricting fair use into oblivion.)

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6WTGS9HxQb37XmcRAqT+AJ9SmC5gXwzyaQPneNpbdnd8q457kACgjKeA
09r98Rx9KpyWmpMW/Put5OE=
=IxwI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 09/13/07 10:01, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> 
>> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
 It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly
 written: " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
 copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

 Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??
>>> This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.
>>>
>>> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?  You can use the
>>> GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you
>>> call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
>>> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end
>>> enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU
>>> (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> 
>> Paraphrasing Luk Claes:
>> besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to be able to
>> if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the GPL text.
> 
> They can, as long as they publish it under a new name.

Great.  We agree.

In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?

If I modify /Alice In Wonderland/, should I be able to call it
/Alice In Wonderland/?  (Might be a bad example, since it's PD.)


>> Quoting Mirim Ruiz:
>> What about ... changing the format or structure for clarifying, or
>> even fixing typos?
> 
> Sure, as long as you change the name of the result and call it
>  Rons General Public License.
> 
> There is also a pragmatic distinction: License textsembody the
>  permission under which we can distribute the software; RFC's do not.
>  We can't retroactively change the license terms we distribute the
>  software under; so hacking up a license, under law, would mean we can
>  not distribute the result.  That one point of law makes a critical,
>  pragmatic difference; so a Work, and the terms of the licesne which
>  grants us the right to modify and distribute the work, have to be
>  treated differently -- or else we have no distribution.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG6WZDS9HxQb37XmcRAsDbAKDHDdC3uZ15On39xvEO+NTjKKgF0ACfUOKR
TV49hK9S3RPAhef78vxr4Zw=
=kxOy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Russ Allbery]

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Great.  We agree.

> In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
> 1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?

Why is this a relevant question?  You can't hack RFC 1725 if you rename it
or not.

If you could modify RFCs as long as you rename them, I expect a lot of DDs
would consider them to be DFSG-free under the same clause that's used for
TeX, as much as that clause isn't our favorite thing in the world.  But
you can't, so what's the point in discussing the hypothetical?

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Russ Allbery]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:25AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

>> Which we have always allowed in software, even.  It falls under the
>> "publish it with another name".

> the requirement to publish in a specific manner is an additional
> restriction.  Granted there are software licenses like that, but are
> they DFSG free ?

Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program
at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The license may require
derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian Project
encourages all authors to not restrict any files, source or binary,
from being modified.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0930, Karl Goetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 20:45 +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known
> as the NM >> process.  It's open to all.
> 
> > NM.  Does this mean only packaging counts as "concrete
> actions"?
> 
> Not only packagers can go though NM. It is a
> measure of
>  commitment to the ideals and foundation documents of the
>  project, as much as it is a test of skills and patience.

So this means NM includes other then packaging? I'm for
that.

> 
> > If packaging is the only 'concrete action' accepted, the
> > idea that users get a say *is* a joke.
> 
> Users do not get a say in deciding how I spend my
> free time,
>  no. 

I spend most of my spare time working as a volunteer (sadly
debian gets very little of that attention), but it does mean
i understand what your saying.

 They can let me know what they wish (that is what
> wishlist bugs
>  are for, no?), and I pay attention to what they want, and
> what is good
>  for them, but I do not ask "how high?" when users say
> "Jump!"

The question (as i saw it) was more aobut who can vote - i
dont expect you to leave the ground when a user says 'jump'.
but if the only user whos allowed to say jump is a DD, then
therse a problem.

karl

> 
> manoj
> -- 
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Neil Williams]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Not only packagers can go though NM. It is a
> > measure of
> >  commitment to the ideals and foundation documents of the
> >  project, as much as it is a test of skills and patience.
> 
> So this means NM includes other then packaging? I'm for
> that.

Yes, the NM site is clear on that - translators, documentation writing,
there's lots to do without needing to do packaging.

>  They can let me know what they wish (that is what
> > wishlist bugs
> >  are for, no?), and I pay attention to what they want, and
> > what is good
> >  for them, but I do not ask "how high?" when users say
> > "Jump!"
> 
> The question (as i saw it) was more aobut who can vote

Only Debian Developers.

> - i
> dont expect you to leave the ground when a user says 'jump'.
> but if the only user whos allowed to say jump is a DD, then
> therse a problem.

Users have ways of requesting that things get done in Debian - the BTS,
the mailing lists and IRC but users cannot dictate how those things are
actually achieved. If the DD agrees, fine - if not, the DD makes the call.

Only other DD's can stipulate *how* things actually get done and not
just because only DD's can actually change Policy.

There's no problem with that.

Users can ask but DD's are not obliged to act on the suggestion in the
way that the user requests. A suggestion from a fellow DD carries more
weight but even then, unless there is a stipulation in Policy, a
suggestion from a DD is still a suggestion. Equally, DD's who appear to
ignore users would eventually find that other DD's find a solution to
the problem(s) raised by the user(s) via an NMU, co-maintenance, etc.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



pgpyjru6t0Ss8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:27:15 +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:  

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:36:28 +0930
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote: 

>> - i
>> dont expect you to leave the ground when a user says 'jump'.  but if
>> the only user whos allowed to say jump is a DD, then therse a
>> problem.

> Users have ways of requesting that things get done in Debian - the
> BTS, the mailing lists and IRC but users cannot dictate how those
> things are actually achieved. If the DD agrees, fine - if not, the DD
> makes the call.

> Only other DD's can stipulate *how* things actually get done and not
> just because only DD's can actually change Policy.

> There's no problem with that.

> Users can ask but DD's are not obliged to act on the suggestion in the
> way that the user requests. A suggestion from a fellow DD carries more
> weight but even then, unless there is a stipulation in Policy, a
> suggestion from a DD is still a suggestion. Equally, DD's who appear
> to ignore users would eventually find that other DD's find a solution
> to the problem(s) raised by the user(s) via an NMU, co-maintenance,
> etc.


If I may ad a rider to this: consider what kinds of things we
 vote upon: we try not to vote on technical issues, since voting is a
 poor means of making technical decisions. Most votes are about
 governance issues for Debian, or on internal policies and procedures;
 and this is not really something people outside the organization get to
 have a say in.  Most countries do not give franchise to just anyone,
 unless a certain degree of commitment, and affirmation of belonging
 happen first.

Consider the votes held in the last couple of year:


 1 General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not
   suitable for Debian main 
 2 Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
 3 Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the
   project 
 4 General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
 5 General Resolution: Recall the project leader
 6 General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
 7 General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
 8 Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
 9 General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
10 General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers

Votes #2 and #8 are about electing the project leader; the
 titular head of the project, and one who can make decisions which may
 impact every developer; the public face of the project, etc.  I am not
 sure very many people would see the benefit of letting users say who
 leads the project. Votes #5 and #6 also belong to the category of the
 project leader.

Votes #3 changes a foundation document in Debian; I think that
 people who have not affirmed their commitment to Debian ought not to
 get a say anyway. Vote #1, #4, and #7 are about clarifying bits of a
 foundation document (the DFSG), and related issues. Again, not
 something that the end user needs to have a say in.

Vote #9 and #10 are about internal procedures of the Debian
 project, I am not sure I see the argument for opening the decision
 process to the wide world.

manoj
 in a meeting, bored
-- 
Try to have as good a life as you can under the circumstances.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "Outside udebs" capability: what are we waiting for?

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I wrote this capability almost a year ago.  It's languished in bugs
> #405886, #405888, #389450.
>
> This is the ability to load from a second source of udebs (non-free, for 
> instance, or vendor supplied).

Non-free already works just fine and is already used if you use the
net or include it on the CD and list it in the info file.

> It's utterly straightforward and actually rather uninvasive code.  As 
> designed it 
> doesn't affect the default build yet, even.
>
> Is there some actual reason why this hasn't been integrated yet?  Has an 
> alternative solution been integrated?

Have you solved the problem of having multiple packages with the same
name? With debian main/contrib/non-free that can't happen but with
outside sources it might. And then bad things happen.

> I was told (over a year ago) that lack of installer support for non-free 
> udebs 
> was the main technical reason for not moving the non-free parts of the kernel 
> to 
> non-free where they belong.  If this was true, integration of 
> this should help unblock five "serious" bugs some of which are more than 
> three 
> years old.

And even at that time the non-free support in D-I was already fully
implemented, working and used.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Goswin von Brederlow]

John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:20 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>>> > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> > > An obsession with "freedom" that insists on removing RFCs from source
>>> > > tarballs, is absurd.  Why not change the contract.
>>> >
>>> > You're not talking seriously, are you?
>>>
>>> Why not? Is it difficult to acknowledge that not all people think the
>>> same? Have you noticed that none of the GR end up with 100% on one side
>>> and 0% on the other?
>>
>>So, what  exact change in the social contract are you proposing?
>
> From a random RFC: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2060.txt
>
> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>
> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
>
> If people need that spelled out in a contract, then spell it out in a
> way that can't be misconstrued.

You are arguing free as in beer and not free as in speech.

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Goswin von Brederlow]

John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>>>
>>> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd to say
>>> they're non-free, and a waste of time removing them from Debian.
>>
>>eh? whattabout modification? and distribution of modified versions?
>
> This is where it gets absurd.
>
> They're RFCs.  They're not code.

For the social contract and dfsg that is irelevant. The contract does
NOT say Debian will have 100% free source code with some non-free
other things mixed in.

> If you want to "modify" an RFC, you have to write your own and submit
> it, see?

MfG
Goswin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FTBFS of many packages in sid

[Tatsuya Kinoshita]

Hi,

Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.

However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
FTBFS of other packages.  Could you please check again after these
bugs are closed?

Thanks,
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita


pgpS047fByF6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
> If I may ad a rider to this: consider what kinds of things we
>  vote upon: we try not to vote on technical issues, since voting is a
>  poor means of making technical decisions.

Yes.  It is appears to be an excellent way to decide to ship broken
software:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/09/12/ubuntu-technical-board-votes-on-compiz-for-ubuntu-7-10
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1721212

>  Most votes are about
>  governance issues for Debian, or on internal policies and procedures;
>  and this is not really something people outside the organization get to
>  have a say in.  Most countries do not give franchise to just anyone,
>  unless a certain degree of commitment, and affirmation of belonging
>  happen first.
> 
Agreed.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: FTBFS of many packages in sid

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 14/09/07 at 06:49 +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.
> 
> However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
> FTBFS of other packages.  Could you please check again after these
> bugs are closed?

Erm, is #441959 really causing many packages to FTBFS ?

I run rebuilds every 2 or 3 weeks, and I plan to go through all open
FTBFS bugs during the BSP in Dijon at the end of the month, so, once
#441870 is fixed, I don't expect false positives to stay open for a long
time.

My workflow currently lacks tools to get a good overview of the reasons
why packages fail to build, which would make cases where one problem
affects many packages easier to detect. I also plan to work on that in
the near future.

Help is totally welcomed, as usual :-)
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: FTBFS of many packages in sid

[Tatsuya Kinoshita]

On September 14, 2007 at 12:50AM +0200,
lucas (at lucas-nussbaum.net) wrote:

> On 14/09/07 at 06:49 +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lucas, thanks for mass bug filing for FTBFS in sid.
> >
> > However, currently, bugs #441870 and #441959 exist which cause
> > FTBFS of other packages.  Could you please check again after these
> > bugs are closed?
>
> Erm, is #441959 really causing many packages to FTBFS ?

Oops, mistook, it should be #441763, which is a bug in db4.2.

libdb4.3-dev and libdb4.2-dev seems to be broken in sid at the moment.

Thanks,
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita


pgpatsfOtC6Y5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Ben Goodger]

On 13/09/2007, Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes.  It is appears to be an excellent way to decide to ship broken
> software:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/09/12/ubuntu-technical-board-votes-on-compiz-for-ubuntu-7-10
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1721212


Making jokes about the mentally handicapped is not suitable material for
this list.

-- 
Benjamin F. Goodger
~ design and ideas lab ~

Bug#62878: Marketing consultants needed

[alexandros vaughan]

All over campus, Stanford has eagerly embraced the "grand challenges" of 
nanotechnology. Just this April, the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (SNF) hosted an 
open house to celebrate its selection to be part of the National Science 
Foundation-sponsored National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network sprawling across 
thirteen universities nationwide. Along with the new Nanocharacterization Laboratory 
expanding the SNF, the nearly finished Manoharan lab that Stanford students bike past on 
the way to physics lab embodies the prominent place nanotechnology has in Stanford 
research for years to come. Specifically, the Manoharan lab is equipped to manipulate 
matter on an atomic level. Here's a cross-section of nanotechnology research currently 
being pursued at Stanford:








Our Company offers a very competitive salary to the successful applicant, along 
with an unrivalled career progression chance. If you believe you have what it 
takes to take on this challenge and would like to apply please send the 
following information to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) Full name 
2) Contact phone numbers

3) Part time job/Full time

The ideal candidate will be an intelligent individual, someone who can work autonomously with a high degree of interest. We are looking for a highly motivated specialist, with skill of working with people. The position is home-based. We offer a part-time position with flexible working hours. And we would be happy to consider a full-time job share applicant. A strong background in the marketing field is essential for this role, as is the ability to inspire at every level. 
You do not need to spend any sum of money and we do not ask you to give us with your bank account number! We are occupied in completely officially authorized activity.

If you are interested in our vacancy please feel free to contact us for further 
information. The preference is given to people with knowledge of foreign 
languages.
Thank you and we are looking forward to cooperate in long term basis with you 
all.













All this from pencil lead: "graphite is a very old material, but take a tiny tube of 
graphite and it has totally different properties, says Dai. "That's what nanotech is all 
about."
In your brain right now, a motor protein called kinesin is shuttling vesicles 
loaded with neurotransmitters to the synapses in your brain, allowing you to 
read this. While some researchers are trying to make similar molecular motors 
scoot around and throw switches on electronic chips, it's hardly certain these 
motors can ever do better than the electrical contacts that are routinely used 
today. The future of biological nanotechnology may not be clear, but what is, 
says Professor




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[David Nusinow]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:50:40PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
> >
> >> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
> >> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
> >
> >We do, actually.  Those users who do show interest in influencing the
> >course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
> >trolling are entitled to vote.  Others aren't.
> >
> >  How do we know the difference?  The criterion is known as the NM
> >process.  It's open to all.
> 
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
> farce.

Troll me harder baby!

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:37, Robert Millan wrote:
> > There isn't any patch that should be required here.  There is already a
> > script in the kernel team repo to be used for pruning non-free firmware
> > from the tarball, and it appears that whoever produced the initial
> > uploads of 2.6.21 and 2.6.22 for Debian omitted this step.
> Why not running this script in debian/rules, causing builds to abort when
> the non-free files are still present?

Seems like a good idea, except that the script will also fail if upstream 
removes something - I don't know how often this happens though.

I guess this info should be added to some bug, so it does eventually 
happen ;-) 


regards,
Holger


pgp8sTRdFpE1M.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

[Peter Samuelson]

[Ron Johnson]
> If I decided that I wanted to "build a better mousetrap", the first
> thing I'd do is go read the relevant RFCs.

Right, and the second thing you'd do is start hammering out a spec for
your improved protocol.  Doing this by cutting and pasting bits from
the existing RFC just might be a lot more convenient than rewriting
your whole protocol spec from scratch.

> While I know that a source file is a "document", some of us have
> more difficulty than others believing or even *agreeing* that
> "traditional" documents should be GPL-style libre.

We're pretty much at an impasse, then, so I don't think I'll reply
after this message.  I, and many Debian folks, don't quite understand
the essential difference, between functional source code and
non-functional documents[*], that make the DFSG freedoms only important
for the one and not the other.  I mean, if I might want to freely make
derivative works of software, well, maybe I want to freely make
derivative works of spec documents too.  For many of the same reasons,
in fact.

[*] And, in fact, RFC documents are more "functional" than most other
documents.  A few even include example source code.

-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Work-needing packages report for Sep 14, 2007

[wnpp]

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.

Total number of orphaned packages: 305 (new: 10)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 74 (new: 2)
Total number of packages requested help for: 36 (new: 0)

Please refer to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for more information.



The following packages have been orphaned:

   autorespond (#442044), orphaned yesterday
 Description: email autoresponder for qmail
 Installations reported by Popcon: 47

   bandersnatch (#442046), orphaned yesterday
 Description: Log Jabber conversations to a peer-visible database
 Reverse Depends: bandersnatch-frontend
 Installations reported by Popcon: 13

   ickle (#441349), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: An ICQ2000 client for GTK+
 Reverse Depends: ickle ickle-control
 Installations reported by Popcon: 220

   libfoundation1.0 (#441322), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: Implementation of the OpenStep specification
 Reverse Depends: libfoundation-tools libfoundation1.0
   libfoundation1.0-dev libsope-appserver4.4 libsope-core4.4 sope-tools
   sope4.4-appserver sope4.4-gdl1-postgresql sope4.4-libxmlsaxdriver
   sope4.4-stxsaxdriver (1 more omitted)
 Installations reported by Popcon: 70

   libicq2000 (#441350), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: An ICQ2000/2001 C++ library
 Reverse Depends: ickle libicq2000-dev
 Installations reported by Popcon: 221

   libobjc-lf2 (#441321), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: libFoundation fork of the Objective-C runtime library
 Reverse Depends: libfoundation-tools libfoundation1.0
   libobjc-lf2-dev libsope-appserver4.4 sope-tools sope4.4-appserver
   sope4.4-gdl1-postgresql sope4.4-libxmlsaxdriver
 Installations reported by Popcon: 76

   matanza (#442045), orphaned yesterday
 Description: Space ascii war game
 Installations reported by Popcon: 84

   sope (#441323), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: Web Application framework inspired by WebObjects and
   ZOPE
 Reverse Depends: libsope-appserver4.4 libsope-appserver4.4-dev
   libsope-core4.4 libsope-core4.4-dev libsope-gdl1-4.4
   libsope-gdl1-4.4-dev libsope-ical4.4 libsope-ical4.4-dev
   libsope-ldap4.4 libsope-ldap4.4-dev (10 more omitted)
 Installations reported by Popcon: 13

   wmcliphist (#441320), orphaned 5 days ago
 Description: Dockapp which provides a history for X11 selections
 Installations reported by Popcon: 84

   wmgrabimage (#442043), orphaned yesterday
 Description: maintains a small thumbnail image from the WWW
 Installations reported by Popcon: 87

295 older packages have been omitted from this listing, see
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned for a complete list.



The following packages have been given up for adoption:

   freeguide (#441947), offered 2 days ago
 Description: Displays TV listings
 Installations reported by Popcon: 137

   libphidgets (#441783), offered 2 days ago
 Reverse Depends: libphidgets-dev python-phidgets
 Installations reported by Popcon: 27

72 older packages have been omitted from this listing, see
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage for a complete list.



For the following packages help is requested:

   aboot (#315592), requested 812 days ago
 Description: Alpha bootloader: Looking for co-maintainers
 Reverse Depends: aboot aboot-cross dfsbuild ltsp-client-core
 Installations reported by Popcon: 114

   apt-build (#365427), requested 502 days ago
 Description: Need new developer(s)
 Installations reported by Popcon: 865

   apt-show-versions (#382026), requested 401 days ago
 Description: lists available package versions with distribution
 Installations reported by Popcon: 2917

   athcool (#278442), requested 1052 days ago
 Description: Enable powersaving mode for Athlon/Duron processors
 Installations reported by Popcon: 296

   cvs (#354176), requested 567 days ago
 Description: Concurrent Versions System
 Reverse Depends: bonsai crossvc cvs-autoreleasedeb cvs-buildpackage
   cvs2cl cvs2html cvschangelogbuilder cvsconnect cvsd cvsdelta (16
   more omitted)
 Installations reported by Popcon: 20312

   dpkg (#282283), requested 1027 days ago
 Description: dselect: a user tool to manage Debian packages
 Reverse Depends: alien alsa-source apt-build apt-cross apt-src
   backuppc build-essential bzr-builddeb clamsmtp crosshurd (87 more
   omitted)
 Installations reported by Popcon: 62747

   elvis (#432298), requested 66 days ago
 Description: powerful clone of the vi/ex text editor (with X11
   support)