. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado I bring you the Debian Official Kernel Configuration Files. It works by scanning the archive nightly for new linux-image and linux-modules packages and extracting configs from them. If you have any comments or proposals on how to improve it, feel free to contact me by email.
Surely clothing fit for an emperor. That is of course, if you are
fit enough to appreciate them.
Source: vim
Section: editors
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian VIM Maintainers <pkg-vim-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Standards-Version: 3.7.2
...
XS-Vcs-Svn: svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-vim/trunk/packages/vim
XS-Vcs-Browser: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-vim/trunk/packages/vim/
The current sample rendering can be seen, for example, in
the PTS page of
the mako package.
More information can be found in the
current patch for the Developer's Reference documenting the
support for the two fields in the web interface of the PTS.
/me hurries-up writing a small post to -devel before John yells at me again for
(ab)using the planet for such announcements 
A pirated movie carries little consequence, except for that the movie industry may lose some cash flow. A fake Rolex purchased on the bustling streets of NYC saves you a lot of money (and robs you of a warranty). But counterfeit drugs, the consequences and stakes are at a whole other, more serious, order of things.Biella's intentions in drawing the analogy are harmless -- people really do lose their lives because of fake drugs while rock-off movies and Rolexes are relatively harmless. However, her aside reminds me of the much less harmless, fair, and honest analogies drawn by Pat Choate in Hot Property who used examples like counterfeit drugs and dishonestly labeled aircraft parts to support a high protectionist position on IP. Because of the arguments made by people like Choate, I believe that there is a subtle danger in the type of analogy that Biella draws that I think we should try to guard against in the future. The danger lies in the fact that these comparisons tend to conflate at least two very different kinds of illegal activity. Trademark violations are illegal. So it selling drugs without approval from regulatory bodies. So is manslaughter and murder -- both terms used in the Times article Biella links to to describe the actions of drug counterfeiters. Laws in most countries already prohibit all of these things and offer increasingly harsh punishments for each action. In fact, selling unlicensed drugs and killing people is much more illegal than violating trademark and making knockoffs. And it should be. When someone commit IP violations in the process of committing much worse crimes, we should focus on highlighting, condemning, and punishing the much worse crime, not the IP violation which in comparison is almost inconsequential. The punishment for counterfeiting drugs may only be a slap on the wrist and that's probably an appropriate punishment for the counterfeiting component of the crime. The other worse crimes that the counterfeiter is also committing should be punished much more harshly. If, as the Dr. Reggi quoted in the Times article complains, "counterfeiting a medicine can be [only] a misdemeanor," we need stronger laws against selling unregulated drugs -- not stronger IP laws. If we confuse and compare bootleg movies and knock-off Rolexes with fake malaria or AIDS drugs, we're likely to come to the opposite conclusion. Our reactions to such situations should be, "People are killing people with fake drugs! We need stronger laws against killing people in these ways." They should not be "People are killing people with fake drugs! Interesting to note that they are also violating trademark laws like other counterfeiters." The former reaction will frame the discussion in a way that lets us treat the bad components of the crime more harshly and will not help IP high protectionists argue for stronger IP through a disingenuous process of guilt by association.
A diverse group of writers has released the first version of the "Definition of Free Cultural Works." The authors have identified a minimum set of freedoms which they believe should be granted to all users of copyrighted materials. Created on a wiki with the feedback of Wikipedia users, open source hackers, artists, scientists, and lawyers, the definition lists the following core freedoms:If you haven't yet, please check out the project at freedomdefined.org. If you're still curious feel free to read about my motivation and why I think that everyone should stand up for what they feel are essential freedoms.Inspired by the Free Software Definition and the ideals of the free software and open source movements, these conditions are meant to apply to any conceivable work. In reality, these freedoms must be granted explicitly by authors, through the use of licenses which confer them. On the website of the definition a list of these licenses can be found. Furthermore, authors are encouraged to identify their works as Free Cultural Works using a set of logos and buttons. The definition was initiated by Benjamin Mako Hill, a Debian GNU/Linux developer, and Erik M ller, an author and long-time Wikipedia user. Wikipedia already follows similar principles to those established by the definition. Angela Beesley, Wikimedia Advisory Board Chair and co-founder of Wikia.com; Mia Garlick, general counsel of Creative Commons; and Elizabeth Stark of the Free Culture Student Movement acted as moderators, while Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation and Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons provided helpful feedback. As more and more people recognize that there are alternatives to traditional copyright, phrases like "open source," "open access," "open content," "free content," and "commons" are increasingly used. But many of these phrases are ambiguous when it comes to distinguishing works and licenses which grant all the above freedoms, and those which only confer limited rights. For example, a popular license restricts the commercial use of works, whereas the authors believe that such use must be permitted for a work to be considered Free. Instead of limiting commercial use, they recommend using a clever legal trick called "copyleft:" requiring all users of the work to make their combined and derivative works freely available. M ller and Hill encourage authors to rethink copyright law and use one of the Free Culture Licenses to help build a genuine free and open culture.
- The freedom to use and perform the work
- The freedom to study the work and apply the information
- The freedom to redistribute copies
- The freedom to distribute derivative works.
. Newbie-friendly FreeSpire had some very enthusiastic folks, showing off their new Click and Run service. They got pretty excited when I mentioned debtags to them. Krugle is a relatively new source code search engine with some nice features. Unfortunately, they were not indexing the Debian’s code repositories, but promised to fix it ASAP (and add support for crawling git repositories as an added bonus). Zenoss presented their impressive open-source monitoring system, and I had a chance to fiddle with the new TrollTech’s Linux-powered GreenPhone. Coming with its own software development kit, this gadget has some serious geek-appeal, however at a price tag of $700 I’m afraid I’ll have to pass for now. And it was exciting to learn that there are still people who feel like writing their own OS pretty much from scratch.Next.