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

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h ... > drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h > In other words, *all* of the above drivers. Wrong! Those are not the *drivers* they are the source code header files needed to link to them. Colin -- Colin Tuckley | [EMAIL PRO

Re: best way to check for an active X session from a maintainer script?

Hi Steve, no need to Cc: me, I read d-d ;-) On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:17:28AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: >> Nothing changed: [...] >> My X session is started from xdm which launch SBCL [1] from a shell >> script to start StumpWM [2]. >

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 08:10:17 +0100, Colin Tuckley wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h > > ... > > > drivers/net/tokenring/3c359_microcode.h > > > In other words, *all* of the above drivers. > > Wrong! > > Those are not the *drivers* they are the sourc

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

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

Re: Package lists for (stable) distribution CDs/DVDs (integrating to package.d.o)

Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:47:22PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >>> Sounds like a cool idea, with a minor issue. The contents of the CDs >>> and DVDs can (and do) vary a little from arch to arch. But we could >>> easily do >>> >>> http://packages.debian.org/stable/cd1-i386/ >

Re: Package lists for (stable) distribution CDs/DVDs (integrating to package.d.o)

> I wonder if there is also a need for the reverse lookup? E.g. one big > file with the packages ordered alphabetically showing what CD(s) the > package is on. This would help people with questions like "What CDs do I > need to buy to make sure I have all of the Apache packages?" I think that wo

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

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

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

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 se

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

> Coming back to looking at Debian after being preoccupied by family business, > I > see that the kernel team is not even seriously trying to separate out any > non-free material. There have been severe regressions from sarge and no > attempt > is being made to fix them. Why don't you start

Re: Why no Opera?

Le mardi 11 septembre 2007 à 20:11 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit : > The point is that nobody is forced to use iceweasel. They do use it, > because that because they do like it the most, not because there is no > alternative. Believe me, I wouldn't use a gecko-based browser if there was a dec

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

[ Reply-to set to debian-project, debian-devel is not the place for such a discussion if people really want to have it ] On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECT

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

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 >> >

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:38AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > Coming back to looking at Debian after being preoccupied by family > > business, I > > see that the kernel team is not even seriously trying to separate out any > > non-free material. There have been severe regressions from sar

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

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 ver

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

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 r

Re: Why no Opera?

Let's add some more browsers: * Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070911 22:26]: > On Tue September 11 2007 11:52:36 am Anthony Towns wrote: > > nameinst vote old recent no-files > > iceweasel 41897 22448 6839 1260010 > > epiphany-browser

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

2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:57:23 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> They're RFCs. They're not code. If you want to "modify" an RFC >> you have to write your own and submit it, see? >What about ... making a derivative specification out of it You hit it. They're SPECIFICATIONS. If y

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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

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

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 04:19 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : > Except for "fixing typos", none of what you seem to propose seems > to my humble eyes to be modifying the base document. Give the new > document a derived name, indicating the changes. Inside the > document, clearly define what

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:20:57AM +, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:57:23 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> They're RFCs. They're not code. If you want to "modify" an RFC > >> you have to write your own and submit it, see? > >What about ... making a derivati

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

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 09:20 +, John Kelly a écrit : > You can argue hypothetical cases all day, sorry I have no time for > that. Still, you seem to have much time to waste for trolling on the Social Contract. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely > zero* > users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation. Kernel has 736[1] open bugs, including ones that corrupt data and ma

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 04:30, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 04:19 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : >> Except for "fixing typos", none of what you seem to propose seems >> to my humble eyes to be modifying the base document. Give the new >

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:13:38 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > Why don't you start to send patches then. Seems you have enough free > time to look after such issues. Fixing Kernels to work on more > (sometimes even important machines, like buildds) is a much more > important job than to get rid of oh

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

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : > > Sorry, but the license doesn't allow that. > > Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have > a different (sometimes non-existent) license. All, though, seem to > say, "Distribution of this memo is unli

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : >>> Sorry, but the license doesn't allow that. >> Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have >> a different (somet

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

Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:31 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : > > You've just found them. Without explicit permission, they are not > > permitted. > > Really? Not in the RFCs I've read. When not specified, copyright law applies. > > You can draft derived versions, but you can't distribute

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

Hi, On Wed, 12.09.2007 at 09:20:57 +, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > that. What's real is the time wasted removing whole RFCs from Debian > in a mindless pursuit of "freedom." Why squander time on trivia when > there more important things to do. well, this one can be easily rectif

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

* Nathanael Nerode: > The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files: > > drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h Probably okay, could be a frequency table or some kind of bitmap. Who knows. > drivers/net/drgs_firmware.c Doesn't exist upstream. Huh? > drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h

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

Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote: 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Distribut

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

On 11140 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more. What team? We dont seem to have a team. > The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files: [...] > In other words, *all* of the above drivers. It's even worse than

ITP: libcrypt-dsa-perl -- DSA Signatures and Key Generation

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Deepak Tripathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name : libcrypt-dsa-perl Version : 0.14 Upstream Author :Benjamin Trott, [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL :http://search.cpan.org/~btrott/Crypt-DSA-0.14/

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 07:07, Luk Claes wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 09/12/07 03:57, Miriam Ruiz wrote: >>> 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune

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

Hi, On Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 14:39:09 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely > > zero* > > users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation. > > Oh well, the kernel team just lost its trust, which means

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 01:25:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:38AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > > > Coming back to looking at Debian after being preoccupied by family > > > business, I > > > see that the kernel team is not even seriously trying to separate ou

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

> I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new applicants > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for > years > with no consequences. > > It doesn't make me respect Debian very much. I am not a DD (yet), but all my packages were very strict

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:42:56PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely > > zero* > > users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation.

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:20:57AM +, John Kelly wrote: > You can argue hypothetical cases all day, sorry I have no time for > that. What's real is the time wasted removing whole RFCs from Debian > in a mindless pursuit of "freedom." Why squander time on trivia when > there more important thi

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

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:42 +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new > > applicants > > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for > > years > > with no consequences. > > > > It doesn't make me respect Deb

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

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : >>> Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and they each seem to have >>> a different (sometimes non-existent) license. All, though, seem t

Bug#442001: ITP: xfce4-places-plugin -- quick access to folders, documents and removable media

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * Package name: xfce4-places-plugin Version : 0.9.991 Upstream Author : Diego Ongaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://goodies.xfce.org/ * License

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

Le Wednesday 12 September 2007 14:07:55 Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > > Someone who uses the modified RFC would create a buggy-by-design > > program and when he realized what some DD had done, boy would he > > (and his bosses, if relevant) be steamed, his trust in Debian would > > plunge, he might

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 09:16, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 09/12/07 05:16, Josselin Mouette wrote: >>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 05:04 -0500, Ron Johnson a écrit : > Which license? I've looked a a few RFCs, and

Re: ITP: tinytinyrss -- Web-based news reader

> Web-based RSS (or feed) reader would be more accurate. > Also upstream refers to it mostly as tt-rss, which I think would > therefore be a more recognisable package name. really! I will go to change package name. > Will you need a sponsor? I have been using tt-rss for over a year so I > am int

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:34 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian >> only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to >> willy-nilly modify the RFC text. >I'm shaking my head in stunned disbelief

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of >> *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a >> Social Contract

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:59:13PM +, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:34 -0500, Ron Johnson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian > > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to > > > w

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:53 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian >> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to >> > > willy-nilly modify the RFC text. >> >> > I'm shaking my hea

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:53 +0200, Pierre Habouzit > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian > >> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it,

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:35:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >there is little point in shipping rfc's that are mirrored everywhere >on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly non-free Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents and purposes, "mirrored everywhere

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

* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070912 15:04]: > These are "official" protocol specifications. If you want to > summarize the RFC, do it in a separate document. Let's consider some use cases: * You want to use some protocol that is mostly the same as some RFC, but with some things changed a

Bug#442032: ITP: openproj -- A desktop replacement for Microsoft Project. It is capable of sharing files with Microsoft Project and has very similar functionality (Gantt, PERT diagram, histogram, char

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: openproj Version : 0.9.4 Upstream Author : Projity Inc. * URL : http://www.openproj.org * License : (CPAL) Programming Lang: (Java) Description : A desktop r

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

Hello, On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following files: > > drivers/media/video/dabfirmware.h # CONFIG_USB_DABUSB is not set > drivers/net/drgs_firmware.c # CONFIG_DGRS is not set > drivers/usb/misc/emi26_f

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/07 11:49, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070912 15:04]: >> These are "official" protocol specifications. If you want to >> summarize the RFC, do it in a separate document. > > Let's consider some use cases: > >

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

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 09/12/07 09:16, Russ Allbery wrote: >> The IETF reserves the right to work on derivative standards based on >> RFCs to itself. You cannot do so outside the IETF without violating >> the RFC license. > So you (or your company) must be a member of the I

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:20:44 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire >contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was that >it extended to the entire contents of the archive. Recently, or some t

SCALE 6x Gears Up

The Sixth Annual SoCal Linux Expo will be February 8th-10th, 2008. It will again be at the Westin LAX. SCALE has reserved more of the hotel resources for SCALE 6X which will help address some of the seminar crowding issues that arose during S5X (success is a nice problem to have). Over the last

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more. > > http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing states, in part: > >Debian kernel team identifies the following three types of firmware, > >currently > >found

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

Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Oh well, the kernel team just lost its trust, which means new uploads of > kernel-team packages dont get their old way of fasttracking in NEW, as I > now need to check all of their uploads for such cases. I'm not sure I find this helpful. You're not checking for copyright vi

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:39:09PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 11140 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > I'm not sure I can take the Debian kernel team seriously any more. > > What team? We dont seem to have a team. > > > The most recent linux-source-2.6.22 contains the following file

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new > > applicants > > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for > > years > > with no consequences. > > > > It doesn't make me resp

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

On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in > all other packages. Yes he is. > The only reason that things like linux-2.6.XX pass through NEW is, from > my POV, because noone stepped up

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

John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire >>contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was >>that it extended to the entire contents of the archive. > Recently,

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of > >> *precisely

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:28:53 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >IF you close your eyes while people get attacked beside you for trying >to do what you are calling for, then you have nothing to complain when >things not happen like you want. Especially when those people who >involve the

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:35:18PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > I did not took any kind of position on the matter in that thread yet. > But to make you happy I will: there is little point in shipping rfc's > that are mirrored everywhere on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly > non-free, and d

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

Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> >> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in >> all other packages. I obviously meant all other *existing* source packages, i.e. all the uploads that don't pass th

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

2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of > users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be different if > another vote was taken, with language specifically exempting RFCs from > the DFSG. This is pure demagogy [1] and a

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of >> users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be different if >> another vote was taken, with lan

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:33:12PM +, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of > >> users, then why not let users

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

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

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

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 influenci

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:13 +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We don't see the point to bend our ideals for obnoxious or invalid >reasons (having RFCs in the source package is completely useless to the >user in the first place). If you truly believe that users will never see t

There interest in emacs-snapshot. Is there sense to have it?

Hi Romain and DDevelopers, I was wondering if there is any sense/intent to reincarnate emacs-snapshot in experimental or unstable. On the way to emacs23 there are quite a few of nice features had been introduced already -- such as multi-TTY support. I am eager to give a try but I am somewhat lazy

Re: There interest in emacs-snapshot. Is there sense to have it?

Hallo, On 9/12/07, Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Romain and DDevelopers, > > I was wondering if there is any sense/intent to reincarnate > emacs-snapshot in experimental or unstable. > > On the way to emacs23 there are quite a few of nice features had > been introduced already

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

On Sep 12, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new > applicants > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for > years > with no consequences. When old members became members, it was commo

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

On Sep 12, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire > contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was that > it extended to the entire contents of the archive. Unless you're You may be aware that some

Re: There interest in emacs-snapshot. Is there sense to have it?

Hi, Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be really nice if emacs-snapshot comes back to existence. It never really went away, it just got removed from the Debian archive. I still maintain it (outside Debian) at the following URL: http://emacs.orebokech.com/ The packages

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

John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:35:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >there is little point in shipping rfc's that are mirrored everywhere > >on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly non-free > > Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents an

Re: There interest in emacs-snapshot. Is there sense to have it?

Thank you Romain for keeping it readily available for us! would it be too much of a hassle to have it in Debian main repository? or there are some licensing issues ;-)? thanks once again! On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Romain Francoise wrote: > Hi, > Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:07:43 +0300, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Sune Vuorela wrote: >> On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> >>> You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff >>> in all other packages. > I ob

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:10:54 +0100, Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Having packages available (whether in non-free or otherwise) can be > useful in terms of having a local copy of the document, but not so > vital as to ignore any licencing issues, since (as has been mentioned) > they

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:03:48 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sep 12, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the >> entire contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote >> outcome was that it extended

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

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:59:53 +0200, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sep 12, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new >> applicants are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently >> violate it at will for y

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

On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > You're not checking for copyright violations or for non-free stuff in > all other packages. I wonder what I did to all those thousands of packages I had in NEW in the past. > IMHO, it's not the ftp-master's job to check with each upload if a > numbe

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

On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote: >> I don't consider it something needing fixing. >> It is a good way to have the copyright files occasionally reviewed. > I don't think that old source packages are re-reviewed for copyright > violations/non-freeness. But I could easily be wrong. Those

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert wrote: [...] > Those that pass NEW for whatever reason are reviewed. Yes, I did reject > lots of such packages for copyright-file brokenness. :) Speaking as someone who has just had a package pass NEW, I would like to thank you for doubl

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

Faidon Liambotis wrote: > IMHO, it's not the ftp-master's job to check with each upload if a > number of DDs follow the social contract as they should. No? What exactly *is* there job then? According to http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html it *is* one of their jobs. Regards, Patr

Re: Bug#441648: ITP: php-auth-sasl -- PHP package for SASL authentication

Hello, On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:43:46PM -0400, Mark A. Hershberger wrote: > > * Package name: php-auth-sasl Please see: #396847 ITP: php-auth-sasl This package is already in SVN repo of pkg-php alioth team, you should see with Martin Lohmeier to work with him. Regards, -- Gregory Colpar

Bug#442082: ITP: libcolor-tools-ruby -- Ruby library to provide RGB, CMYK and other colorspace support

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libcolor-tools-ruby Version : 1.3.0 Upstream Author : Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://ruby-pdf.rubyforge.org/color-tools/ * License : MIT/X Programming La

Bug#442084: ITP: libtransaction-simple-ruby -- A generic way to add active transaction support to objects

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libtransaction-simple-ruby Version : 1.4.0 Upstream Author : Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://rubyforge.org/projects/trans-simple/ * License : MIT/X Progra

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:07:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > What about adding clarifications, what about summarising parts of the RFC? You don't need a free license to do either of those things, though, which is part of the reason why... > It's more about the freedom to fix things or to use thi

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

(-kernel dropped) On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:07:43 +0300, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > Sune Vuorela wrote: > >> On 2007-09-12, Faidon Liambotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> You're not checking for copyright v

Bug#442087: ITP: libpdf-writer-ruby -- Native Ruby library for creating PDF documents

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libpdf-writer-ruby Version : 1.1.3 Upstream Author : Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://ruby-pdf.rubyforge.org/pdf-writer/ * License : MIT/X (some components c

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

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:26:37PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11140 March 1977, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > > >> I don't consider it something needing fixing. > >> It is a good way to have the copyright files occasionally reviewed. > > I don't think that old source package

Re: There interest in emacs-snapshot. Is there sense to have it?

Hi, Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > would it be too much of a hassle to have it in Debian main > repository? or there are some licensing issues ;-)? Yeah, the same licensing issues that led to its removal. Sorry. Cheers, -- ,''`. : :' :Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PR