-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* Kevin Mark <email@example.com> [2004-05-01 05:54:38 -0400]:
> On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:23:31AM +0200, Nicolaus Kedegren wrote:
> > * Kenneth Macdoald Karlsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2004-04-30 16:44:31 +0200]:
> > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 01:25, Katipo wrote:
> > > > Nicos Gollan wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > I agree with many of the posters on slashdot. A distribution that uses a
> > > lot of focus on licencing and fanatic disputes about how the world ought
> > > to be will probably end up as "something funny that was once ago". It
> > > seems to me that foucus now is to support 11 architectures (many of them
> > > are old) in sync and to remove/downgrade support for modern
> > > archtectures/ hardware. That sounds not like a sustainable environment
> > > for me.
> > > Im out of here.
> > > To qoute the dolphins: Good luck and thanks for all the fish...
> > >
> > > Kenneth.
> > >
> > >
> > Hey All,
[SNIPping part of my previous post]
> > Not only is Debian one of the best distros around, but IMNHO one of the
> > real strenths with Debian is the fact that the developers are very aware
> > of the licensing isues. In a world where SCO is claiming patent-rights
> > over GNU software, this discussion is very important. I am not willing
> > to give up our rights to use GPL:ed or other free (not as in beer)
> > software, just to avoid a one-shot delay in a release. If using the
> > latest and greatest is important, go with testing or unstable. I am
> > aware of the fact that some software in woody is getting a bit long in
> > tooth, but for me, freedom is more important. If i need to upgrade
> > software, I can always use a different version than the one in Woody.
> > Best Regards
> > Nicolaus Kedegren
> > --
> Hi Nicolaus and the rest of d-u folks,
> I have been following the discussion from bits here, from
> planet.debian.net and misc sources. I appreciate the effort that goes
> into making Debian but I wish that it could be a bit pragmatic and just
> temporarity suspend the issues relating to the most recent update to the social
> contract and release the debian-installer and sarge and let the world see
> the great stuff that has been brewing in the debian laboratories. I
> think the issue to examine the entierty of Debian to make not just the
> software in compliance with the SC but also the documentation and image
> files, sound file, etc. is great. But it will take so much time that it
> would kill the momentum that was building around the release of the next
> debian that the world at large was waiting for with baited breath,
> especially in light of the whole redhat EOL issue and the increase in
> interest because of it. I think that the re-examination of every
> debian molecule could be done during the next release and would be no
> loss to the overall goal to make debian as free as possible.
> Aparently, some think that the new change must be put on the top of the
> agenda and to do otherwise is the diminish the integrety of the release
> and anything other than the most throughtly examined, free distro is not
> acceptable. In theory this is a great thing and a goal I think should be
> worked for, but in light of the timing of the change of the SC, I think
> things should go on the expected path and let the version after sarge take on
> the new changes to the SC.
> -Kevin Mark
Hi Kevin, and other readers,
I have to admit that I get a *little* dogmatic from time to time, and
although I am a firm believer in doing-things-the-right-way, I agree
that the time chosen for this task could have been different.
Taking the risk of going OT: I have a vague memory of having seen
this discussion before, when I first adopted Debian as my distro of
choice. This discussion was actually the reason why I went with
Debian, and not some of the distro's available over the counter.
I am a firm believer in freedom of choice, and to me Debian represents
this freedom, at least when it comes to software.
Once again, a big thank you to all Debian-developers.
<dash> finally! an essential representation of the confusion.
[ed: referring to a diagram of twisted.cred]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: sarge?
- From: Nicolaus Kedegren <email@example.com>
- Re: sarge?
- From: Kevin Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org>