* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 17:13]:
> > Has all this talking resulted in even an iota of concrete movement
> > on the official FSF position? Have there been any real promises
> > made that there is indeed going to be a change, from hte powers
> > that be in the FSF? Is there anything solid
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 17:13]:
> > Has all this talking resulted in even an iota of concrete movement
> > on the official FSF position? Have there been any real promises
> > made that there is indeed going to be a change, from hte powers
> > that be in the FSF? Is there anything solid
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 10:15]:
> Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion
> should be given before taking further action. For example, is
> tagging FDL-caused bugs -ignore for the next four years
> acceptable?
In July last year, I was asked by some members
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 10:15]:
> Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion
> should be given before taking further action. For example, is
> tagging FDL-caused bugs -ignore for the next four years
> acceptable?
In July last year, I was asked by some members
On 2004-03-03 15:46:59 + Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
months? How much longer should this di
On 2004-03-03 15:46:59 + Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
months? How much longer should this discu
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:29:39 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
> >> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
> >> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
> >> months? How much
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 10:29]:
> Has all this talking resulted in even an iota of concrete
> movement on the official FSF position? Have there been any real
> promises made that there is indeed going to be a change, from hte
> powers that be in the FSF? Is the
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:46:59 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
>> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
>> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
>> months? How much longer
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
> months? How much longer should this discussion be given? What would
> they do to see more FDL-caused bugs in
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:29:39 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
> >> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
> >> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
> >> months? How much
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 10:29]:
> Has all this talking resulted in even an iota of concrete
> movement on the official FSF position? Have there been any real
> promises made that there is indeed going to be a change, from hte
> powers that be in the FSF? Is the
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:46:59 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
>> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
>> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
>> months? How much longer
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 08:33]:
> It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the
> FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three
> months? How much longer should this discussion be given? What would
> they do to see more FDL-caused bugs in
On 2004-03-03 07:12:40 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
However, I'm sympathetic to RMS having been injured, and I'm
sympathetic
to Eben Moglen having to work overtime to counter the outrageous FUD
and
untruths being spewed by SCO and its shadowy partners.
Hrm, emails like
On 2004-03-03 07:12:40 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
However, I'm sympathetic to RMS having been injured, and I'm
sympathetic
to Eben Moglen having to work overtime to counter the outrageous FUD
and
untruths being spewed by SCO and its shadowy partners.
Hrm, emails like this
16 matches
Mail list logo
