Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CRA and PLD vote status
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Kurt Roeckx
Nov 29, 2023, 4:50:04 PM11/29/23
to
Hi,
I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which
the current status.
We're at the maximum discussion period of 3 weeks, so the vote will
probably start the 10th of December.
Kurt
I've updated the page at https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 which
the current status.
We're at the maximum discussion period of 3 weeks, so the vote will
probably start the 10th of December.
Kurt
Kurt Roeckx
Dec 6, 2023, 11:30:04 PM12/6/23
to
Can people make suggestions for the ballot options text?
Kurt
Kurt
Bart Martens
Dec 7, 2023, 10:50:03 AM12/7/23
to
May I suggest for proposal C:
"The EU should not overrule DFSG 6 and FOSS licenses"
--
"The EU should not overrule DFSG 6 and FOSS licenses"
Kurt Roeckx
Dec 8, 2023, 2:50:05 PM12/8/23
to
Since the vote will start in a few hours, I need options for the other 2
options. My best attempts so far:
A: The CRA and PLD will be detrimental to open source software
B: The EU should clarify that non-commercial open source is exempted
options. My best attempts so far:
A: The CRA and PLD will be detrimental to open source software
B: The EU should clarify that non-commercial open source is exempted
C: The EU should not overrule DFSG 6 and FOSS licenses
Kurt
Ilu
Dec 8, 2023, 2:50:05 PM12/8/23
to
The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
to free and open source software
Am 08.12.23 um 20:40 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
to free and open source software
Am 08.12.23 um 20:40 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
Judit Foglszinger
Dec 8, 2023, 3:00:04 PM12/8/23
to
> > The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> > to free and open source software
>
> We've never had such a long option, and I'm worried this will break for
> > to free and open source software
>
> some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line. But it
> might also just be fine. There is at least some code that only checks
> the first few words or something like that.
regulations in CRA and PLD proposals will be detrimental to FLOSS ?
Kurt Roeckx
Dec 8, 2023, 3:00:04 PM12/8/23
to
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 08:43:33PM +0100, Ilu wrote:
> The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> to free and open source software
> The CRA and PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> to free and open source software
We've never had such a long option, and I'm worried this will break for
some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line. But it
might also just be fine. There is at least some code that only checks
the first few words or something like that.
Kurt
some people trying to vote when it gets wrapped to the next line. But it
might also just be fine. There is at least some code that only checks
the first few words or something like that.
Ilu
Dec 8, 2023, 3:10:04 PM12/8/23
to
Am 08.12.23 um 20:55 schrieb Judit Foglszinger:
No. It is important that vote A did not say that ALL of CRA and PLD are
detrimental. Just certain parts of it. It says explicitely: "While a lot
of these regulations seem reasonable,..."
CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
to FOSS
Without knowing the character limit I cannot produce a solution, but if
this is still too long you could remove the word "proposals".
detrimental. Just certain parts of it. It says explicitely: "While a lot
of these regulations seem reasonable,..."
CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
to FOSS
Without knowing the character limit I cannot produce a solution, but if
this is still too long you could remove the word "proposals".
Russ Allbery
Dec 8, 2023, 3:20:04 PM12/8/23
to
Ilu <il...@gmx.net> writes:
> CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> to FOSS
How about:
> CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> to FOSS
CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Ilu
Dec 8, 2023, 3:40:04 PM12/8/23
to
Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery:
by me. I've pinged Santiago.
> Ilu <il...@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
>> to FOSS
>
> How about:
>
> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
>
This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine
>
>> CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
>> to FOSS
>
> How about:
>
> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
>
by me. I've pinged Santiago.
Lucas Nussbaum
Dec 8, 2023, 4:20:04 PM12/8/23
to
Hi,
On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> [ ] Choice 2: The EU should clarify that non-commercial FOSS is exempted
"non-commercial FOSS" sounds like CC BY-NC-SA (which is not FOSS). What
this option is trying to say is that FOSS development outside commercial
context should be exempted (or non-commercial FOSS organizations).
However I cannot find a wording that fits on a single line...
Lucas
On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> [ ] Choice 2: The EU should clarify that non-commercial FOSS is exempted
"non-commercial FOSS" sounds like CC BY-NC-SA (which is not FOSS). What
this option is trying to say is that FOSS development outside commercial
context should be exempted (or non-commercial FOSS organizations).
However I cannot find a wording that fits on a single line...
Lucas
Luca Boccassi
Dec 8, 2023, 6:10:04 PM12/8/23
to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 23:04, Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
> Maybe this?
> [ ] Choice 2: The EU should exempt non-commercial use of FOSS"
It's not just use, development too. Maybe:
"CRA and PLD proposals should only apply to commercial ventures"
> [ ] Choice 2: The EU should exempt non-commercial use of FOSS"
It's not just use, development too. Maybe:
"CRA and PLD proposals should only apply to commercial ventures"
Bart Martens
Dec 8, 2023, 6:10:04 PM12/8/23
to
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Maybe this?
[ ] Choice 2: The EU should exempt non-commercial use of FOSS"
>
> Lucas
[ ] Choice 2: The EU should exempt non-commercial use of FOSS"
>
>
--
Russ Allbery
Dec 8, 2023, 6:30:04 PM12/8/23
to
>> How about:
>> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine
> by me. I've pinged Santiago.
Yeah, casually you would normally stick "that would be" or "that are" in
>> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine
> by me. I've pinged Santiago.
between "regulations" and "detrimental", but you can omit it without loss
of meaning. This wording reads as more formal and a little stuffy, but I
think people will understand it.
You more often see this construction in the phrase "actions detrimental to
<some organization>" in, say, codes of conduct or laws or whatnot.
0 new messages