> > You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the > > SC. I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to > > distribute in 100% free form software systems which have been in 100% > > free form.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:26:04PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: > I'm not sure what a free form software is, but I think I get what you're > saying. form was a typo -- I should have removed it from the sentence before posting. > > If you disagree with this interpretation, perhaps you could state > > yours? > > I don't disagree with the intended interpretation. I disagree with the > manner in which your proposals were written. That's all. Suffield's > proposals are much more conservative in their changes and more direct in > meaning. One of his proposals is more conservative in its changes. The other -- the one which has been introduced -- is pretty radical. -- Raul
