>
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
>> don't speak for all of us.
>
>
> I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
> state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined.
>
The elected members of the Board of Di
>
> It’s frankly pretty difficult for me at least to distinguish between
> Richard-speaking-as-Richard-alone and Richard-speaking-as-the-FSF, and he
> never makes the distinction himself. Does he hold some viewpoint that the
> FSF does not, or vice versa? That would actually be news to me.
>
Perso
On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote:
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please don't
> speak for all of us.
However you define “many”, it doesn’t mean “all”, Mathieu, so don’t speak for —
or over — those of us who aren’t in line with Richard’s
On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>
> Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not giving
> due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to what
> he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not seem all
> that u
>
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
>> don't speak for all of us.
>
>
> I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
> state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined.
>
There are people who are in a position
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Magdalen Berns
wrote:
>
>> Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not
> giving due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to
> what he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not
> seem all that
>
> Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is
> being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that
> is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share
> the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle <
mduponchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
> don't speak for all of us.
I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
state their stance on it, I don'
Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
don't speak for all of us.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Nimit Shah wrote:
> Hi Magdalen,
> I agree with Meg. Many of us don't share the same ethics as FSF and that
> is the reason why we don't have much to contribute to o
Hi Magdalen,
I agree with Meg. Many of us don't share the same ethics as FSF and that is
the reason why we don't have much to contribute to over here.
Nimit Shah
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:44 AM, meg ford wrote:
> Hi Magdalen,
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Magdalen Berns
> wrote:
>
>> T
Hi Magdalen,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Magdalen Berns
wrote:
> This makes perfect sense to me. At the moment I am not totally convinced
> that the rest of the community are on board with what you have said though.
> It is not clear whether or not people understand the nuances of how you a
Hi,
At this stage, I regretfully have urge anyone who would preference lashing
out on twitter with their frustrations about the existence of this thread,
to consider engaging in a reasoned way on this dedicated thread about their
concerns. Whist throwing bigotry at me may seem like the easiest way
I tried to view a page on Facebook, which is a posting about a
political issue. I used wget as usual, and all I got was something
telling me to log in first.
Meanwhile, you reported
> It seems can actually technically view the page without being logged in
> which is a good thing, but it seem
Hi Richard,
>
> I believe it is possible to view many Facebook pages without running
> JS. (I am about to verify that.)
According to the libreJS plugin you pointed us to earlier on in the
discussion, all javascript that facebook tries to run, is offending. When
LibreJS blocks the scripts it rep
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Some others have mentioned social networking site links e.g. facebook et
> al.
I think you have defined it well.
> I would expect that these potential problem cases occur rarely.
> Can you recall any others besides this one?
>
Some others have mentioned social networking site links e.g. facebook et
al. Though I am not sure this would apply to all of the ones listed because
16 matches
Mail list logo
