> > > Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
> > > software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
> > > guideline #3.
> > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
> > of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirem
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
>
> No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
> subject line.
>
> Argumentum ad hominem would be "You're lying, therefore you're
> wrong". This was "Here is documented evide
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
> > > [ ] Drop non-free
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
> > drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
> > who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
>
> It's my observation that a numb
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
> > not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
> > practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? We d
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
> >
> > No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
> > subject line.
> >
> > Argumentum ad hominem would be "
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
> > > requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
> > examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
> developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
> to
I concur with the analysis of the components I have skipped.
In all the cases where Raul has included changes that I have not, I
think that they are either wrong or pointless. All the ones that I
have not covered in this mail fall into the "pointless" category, and
are mostly typographical changes
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
