Em Qua, 2005-05-11 Ãs 03:07 -0500, Jaime Ochoa MalagÃn escreveu:
> Hi everybody,
Hello,
>
> I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian
> (including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger
> to being sued?
Non-free is only *distributed* by Debian,
* Ed Cogburn
| We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake!
I can't see that you've done anything at all for the AMD64 port, nor
are you a DD. Please go troll somewhere else.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still
> mad that the DDs voted to keep it. Sure.
I *am* an AMD64 user, and I can completely understand *why* they are
being cautious.
Hi everybody,
I'm only have a doubt, if someone make a mirror of the official debian
(including non-free) and all that packages are ditributed is in danger
to being sued?
Accordingly with Goswin that's nothing about complain, only the main
server of the distribution don't have non-free, the main
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it.
On Sunday 08 May 2005 4:23pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> >> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> >> >
> >> > That was the point ma
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:34:57AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
Stop acting like such a spoiled child. You want non-free for amd64? Host it
yourself until it gets moved officially. Don't like it? You've qualified
for a full refund on your purchase.
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 3:22pm, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
> >
> > Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
>
> Laywers arent rationale.
>
> > Give us one reasonable exampl
On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
> Sure. Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
Laywers arent rationale.
> Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and
> money to sue the amd64.de
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
> > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what
> > can go in and what not. We know most
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 11:19am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
> > in right now because they don't require anyone's permission to
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> >
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other arch! I
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!
You're entirely right. After having to read that lot, I'd be impressed
if anyone cared about making sure amd64 shipped with non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> >
> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
> > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Wit
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ed Cogburn writes:
>> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
>> provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
>> internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
>> providing ac
Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > ar
On Sunday 08 May 2005 09:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
> > other
> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why.
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the
>> > other
>> > arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that
>> > explanation I am
>> > forced to
Ed Cogburn writes:
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the
> internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem
> providing access to, but not support for, non-free.
One of
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
> That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in the other
> arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without that explanation
> I am
> forced to agree with Ed - the
On Sunday 08 May 2005 05:02, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> >> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> >> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> >> aren't Debian).
> > Wait a second, if you *are
On 10283 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
>> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
>> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
>> aren't Debian).
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-f
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not harder.
Permission to redistribute some bits of non-free may be specific to
Debian. Alternatively, packages may be buildable but no permission to
rebuild them g
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:26:20AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
>
Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> > it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> > aren't Debian).
>
>
> Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
> provide non-free, not har
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:22am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
> Note: non-free is NOT provided yet. We need to decide what we do with
> it, as we may be forbidden to distribute some of the software in it (we
> aren't Debian).
Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to
27 matches
Mail list logo
