On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 12:38:26PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> It is amazing how people so are ready to snap at something that isn't as
> bad as they make it seem. Please don't start quoting what I said. I know
> what I said and I know what I meant. You are taking what I said way out
> of cont
Hi Steve and Manoj,
> Probably. I guess I just like a little more enthusiasm than "I'll abide
> by the rules."
Steve, I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I'm always talking about how
great Debian is to my colleagues and always try to convince them to try
and use Debian. You may not think so b
Hi,
[I am not disagreeing entirely]
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the
Joey> DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it
Joey> and will abide by it in what they produce for debian.
Joey Hess wrote:
> > I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It
> > should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will
> > abide by it in what they produce for debian.
Then, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but OTOH, it's a little hard to fatho
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It
> should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide
> by it in what they produce for debian.
Yes, but OTOH, it's a little hard to fathom why someone would *want* to
work on Debian if they
I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should
be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what
they produce for debian.
--
see shy jo
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 09:01:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> what this means is that less than a quarter of developers care enough
> about specific issues to argue it or vote about it. that's no surprise,
> most developers have time to work on one or two (or a dozen or more)
> packages but are
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 02:32:45AM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > > The fact that my opinions go against what is apparently the Debian
> > > mainstream way of thinking doesn't mean that I should leave.
> >
> > however, if (after you have had your say) the majority of developers
> > think you are w
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 12:38:26PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> It is amazing how people so are ready to snap at something that isn't as
> bad as they make it seem. Please don't start quoting what I said. I know
> what I said and I know what I meant. You are taking what I said way out
> of c
Hi Marcus,
> Hell, what are you TALKING about
>
>
> Debian is a voluntary organization. If participation in the police state is
> voluntary, I don't care a penny if you can speak up or not, because I would
> not be there.
>
> You are free to enter and to leave Debian. As long as you stay wi
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> > Ossama> Looking at it from the author's point of view, the author may
> > Ossama> feel that Debian's definition of "free" is wrong and his is
> > Ossama> right. So he may also think about Debian that "there is
> > Ossama> indeed som
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 01:16:36AM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Let's assume that we live
> in a police state where speaking up against the law is unheard of and
> punishable. Which would you prefer: living in a society where people
> follow the laws but speak up if the law isn't a fair one in th
Hi Craig,
> > The point is that it easy to say "I am right and you are wrong." Who
> > makes us right and them wrong?
>
> i think you're missing the point.
>
> the point has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.
Somewhere along the way of this thread I unwittingly moved into the
ph
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 01:18:37AM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Ossama> Looking at it from the author's point of view, the author may
> > Ossama> feel that Debian's definition of "free" is wrong and his is
> > Ossama> right. So he may also think about Debian that "there is
> > Ossama> indee
Hi Craig,
> > I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again.
>
> not sure what you mean by that. i thought i was quite careful to state
> that i was using a generic "you" in my examples, and not referring to you
> personally. if you got that impression, then i apologise
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:19:46PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again.
not sure what you mean by that. i thought i was quite careful to state
that i was using a generic "you" in my examples, and not referring to you
Hi Manoj,
> Ossama> Looking at it from the author's point of view, the author may
> Ossama> feel that Debian's definition of "free" is wrong and his is
> Ossama> right. So he may also think about Debian that "there is
> Ossama> indeed something wrong that they should know about."
>
> T
Hi Manoj,
> >> Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be
> >> branded "heretics" or encouraged to leave.
>
> Why not?
Isn't that rather extreme? :)
> When views of people differ in detail ,there is basis for a
> dialogue. When even the fundamentals are co
Hi,
>>"Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If software is not DFSG-free, there is something in its license that limits
>> its use as free software. If the author intended their software to be used
>> and distributed and developed freely, there is indeed something wrong that
Hi Manoj,
> Ossama> If we all agreed on the DFSG then how would change ever
> Ossama> occur?
>
> Why is it so necesary for any change to occur?
I meant if the need for change ever arose.
> And most of the developers I talked to were in favour of
> clarifying the DFSG, not changin
Hi Manoj,
> I was under the imprtession that that was a requirement of the
> new maintainer process? The DFSG is critical to the core of debian,
> it is what makes Debian what it is. And even though diversity of
> opinion is indeed laudable, there has to be a basis for understanding
> an
Hi,
>>"Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> If we all agreed on the DFSG then how would change ever
Ossama> occur?
Why is it so necesary for any change to occur?
And most of the developers I talked to were in favour of
clarifying the DFSG, not changing
Hi,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) wrote:
>> Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream should not be
>> branded "heretics" or encouraged to leave.
Why not?
When views of people differ in detail ,there is basis for a
dialogue. When even the fundamentals are conte
Hi,
>>"Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> I was referring to the fact that many of the developers
Ossama> strongly felt that I should agree with the DFSG, i.e. not
Ossama> have my own opinion of it.
I was under the imprtession that that was a requirement of th
Hi Steve,
> If Debian *stops* making sure that new developers agree[1] with the
> DFSG, then think *I'd* reconsider my developer status. If you don't
> agree[1] with the DFSG, why on earth do you want to be a Debian
> developer? Now, when I joined, there was no DFSG or social contract,
Because I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 19-Jan-99 Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Agreeing" with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major
> aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that
> means then we're not going to get *anywhere*.
>
Not necessarily. Agreeing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 19-Jan-99 Ossama Othman wrote:
> My concern is that Debian is becoming (almost) elitist. Some people are
> flat out saying "conform or get out," in a sense. Is this really a
> healthy attitude for Debian to have? I am not trying to create some sort
> of De
I ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of
> > opinion in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) responded:
> I was referring to the fact that many of the developers strongly felt
> that I
Hi,
I wrote:
> I was referring specifically to Craig. Rather I was referring to some of
Sorry, that should have been "I was NOT referring specifically to Craig."
Boy am I going to hear it for this foul up! :)
Hi Brian,
> > If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian.
>
> With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of opinion
> in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long.
I was referring to the fact that many of the developers strongly felt that
I sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ossama Othman) wrote:
> If used properly, diversity of opinion should only help Debian.
With all due respect, if you think that there is no diversity of opinion
in Debian, then you haven't been around here for very long.
> Those with opinions that differ from the mainstream sh
Hi Anthony,
> But you should agree with our social contract, right? That is, after all,
> what the point of a social contract /is/, isn't it? That we'll all abide
> by it?
Agreeing and abiding aren't the same thing. A developer may not agree
with the social contract but s/he should certainly abi
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:19:46PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again.
> IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the
> social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder
> Debian. I don't ag
Hi Craig,
I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again.
IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the
social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder
Debian. I don't agree with all of Debian's policies, nor should I have to.
How
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:13:09PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously David Welton wrote:
> > Well, even if RMS doesn't care for it, you can pull out the Open
> > Source definition, which is definitive and specific, and generally
> > used as the benchmark for what 'free' is.
>
> You do kn
Previously David Welton wrote:
> Well, even if RMS doesn't care for it, you can pull out the Open
> Source definition, which is definitive and specific, and generally
> used as the benchmark for what 'free' is.
You do know the OS definition is the same as the current DFSG, right?
Wichert.
--
==
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote:
> Hm, non-debian does have its good points.
It has some potential problems, too. It could imply that the packages
found there are not built by Debian volunteers, or that they do not
adhere to Debian's policy standards, or that they are not supported by
Debian
37 matches
Mail list logo
