Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-30 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:49:45PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > AJT wrote: > >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for > >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists. > Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved,

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-30 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 07:49:45PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > AJT wrote: > >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for > >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists. > Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved,

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-30 Thread Nathanael Nerode
AJT wrote: >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists. Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite frankly.

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-30 Thread Nathanael Nerode
AJT wrote: >BTW, fix your mail reader. There's no excuse for breaking threads, nor for >Cc'ing people with a Mail-Followup-To set when posting to debian lists. Sorry about the latter. Fixing the former is much more involved, quite frankly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:32:02PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Perhaps you haven't noticed that in the case of the FSF, upstream is actively > hostile to relicensing documentation on DFSG-free terms? It's entirely possible to deal successfully with actively hostile upstreams. Although less

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:32:02PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Perhaps you haven't noticed that in the case of the FSF, upstream is actively > hostile to relicensing documentation on DFSG-free terms? It's entirely possible to deal successfully with actively hostile upstreams. Although less

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-29 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Anthony Towns wrote: >Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free: >remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's >even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc >documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly

Re: Re: "keep non-free" proposal

2004-01-29 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Anthony Towns wrote: >Basically, there are two paths to having a main that's completely free: >remove everything that's not free, and have an operating system that's >even more flakey (byebye to the Debian logo, byebye to glibc and gcc >documentation, byebye to RFCs, byebye to apps without clearly