[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:46:47AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> >-----------
> >The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> >applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> >the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> >instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> >send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> >-----------
> I've made a point of telling people that I think Ben is about the only
> one who deserves any praise for what's been happening on the kernel
> front. I'll happily help to push beer/chocolate/$foo at him as a thank
> you for that, regardless of any vote here.
> >I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time
> Seconded.

As a matter of fact, if you want to send chocolate to Ben I second that too.

I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us
look like a bunch of clowns.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: