On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 19:35, Branden Robinson wrote: > [Joe, I don't think RMS is subscribed to -legal.]
I'm pretty sure he's not, which is why he was in my To: line, which is what I've been consistently doing. If this is a problem I'll move non-list addresses to Cc:, but I usually only use Ccs if I expect the other party to be interested in reading but not necessarily participating. Since my comment was a direct response to RMS, I consider To: the appropriate header. (Feel free to quote netiquette/RFCs at me, because I might be outright wrong.) > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:39:11PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation > > *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free > > documentation *criteria*. > > Even that is not true. The "OPL" (Open Publication License), predates > the GNU FDL. > > The GNU FDL was written in part as a reaction to the OPL. I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here, referring only to instructions on using computer programs. AFAIK, the OPL was intended to be a generic free publication license. Sorry for the confusion. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
