On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Gil Forcada wrote:
>
> So in short, one day as registration/pre-conference/hackfest/BoF day it
> should be a must for all conferences that everyone expects to run
> smoothly.
Makes sense to me. And if anyone knows what will and won't make conferences
like GUADEC run
I agree. In fact, I'd like to see the full text of Mr. Stallman's essay on why
software should be free included as well, so that readers will not be misled in
any way, but will understand the full import of this distinction.
I especially enjoy the discussion of how software developers are grossl
On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> In the latest GNOME Foundation board meeting minutes (January 6th),
> some information that we intended to keep private was included:
>
>> * Hiring updates
>> o Marketing: only Lefty has
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Andrew Savory wrote:
>
>
>> By chance is the desktop environment for the Motorola Atrix laptop accessory
>> based on LiMo? The desktop seems to have a strong resemblance to a GNOME
>> desktop.
>
> It may be GNOME, but it's not LiMo that I'm aware of.
Whatever it'
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Lefty wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Andrew Savory wrote:
>>>
>>>> By chance is the desktop environment for the Motorola Atrix laptop
>>>> accessory based on LiMo? The desktop seems to have a s
First: Since the issue of "divisive attitude[s] such as Richard sometimes seems
to [promote?] when he talks about 'GNU/Linux'" came up, I'd be interested to
know what, if anything, candidates for the Board propose to do to address the
ongoing waste of time and energy in the community over trivia
On Mar 8, 2013, at 3:20 AM, Sindhu S wrote:
>
> My two cents is that going by the rule of free works and their derivatives
> must also be free, the author should consider releasing the book (TXT or PDF
> format) under a copyleft license and to be fair to the effort the author has
> put in, he
On Apr 27, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Luc Pionchon wrote:
>
> On 27 April 2013 17:08, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Continuously telling some of our biggest fans that they are wrong all the
> time is not the way to grow our project.
>
> As a soft note, I did not read Richard's message this way.
It always s
On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> It seems to me that this thread has turn into a series of counter arguments
> with no specific direction.
>
> Before we go ahead, can we please clarify:
> a) What problem are we trying to solve.
My impression, increasingly, is that the “proble
On Aug 7, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>2. If the extent of your involvement in the GNOME Foundation's life is
>going to be something that a bot can replace, can we please have the bot
>instead?
> If someone can design a bot smart enough to find and express new
> spec
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:01 PM, James wrote:
>
> Causing me to waste more internets time I've just looked up:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev
Here: “waste” some more time, and get an education:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-you
On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:48 PM, James wrote:
>
> I'd personally recommend you avoid getting angry at your MUA, read
> this (rudely titled, but well written) article:
> https://weev.livejournal.com/409835.html?nojs=1 and get back to
> hacking :)
Oh, you’d personally recommend the opinion of the guy
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>
> The stigma related to bitcoin is just the media doing their thing to try and
> discredit it, in my humble view. A lot of people do not buy into that stuff.
> With that said, it is reasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable with
> something
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
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 2/22/10 11:27 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
>> * It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it
>> or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some
>> of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform.
>
> Have we lost the mobile battle?
I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for
December and January.
On 2/22/10 1:12 PM, "Alberto Ruiz" wrote:
> 2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) :
>> Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage
>> with respect to an
Okay, I had hoped this might simply die out, but instead, it's becoming
increasingly absurd as well as increasingly personal in tone. First, Philip
didn't ask anyone to stop saying things, he expressed some dismay at what
was being said, and not without reason.
Beyond the suggestionwhich Philip h
On 3/2/10 4:39 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these
> arguments on the Foundation list.
That's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing are personal attacks and loose
rhetoric (e.g. "pissing contest") in response to pretty reasoned att
On 3/4/10 5:46 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make
> toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete,
> except as platforms for a browser.
And if everything gets done on your desktop, it would make browsers
On 3/4/10 7:22 AM, "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" wrote:
>
> Somewhere in there should be a self-sustaining model to raise money
> for the hosting and GNOME, and provide Free as in Freedom services for
> users in the bargain...
It's a nice idea, but I don't see any "self-sustaining model" that's
appr
On 3/4/10 9:07 AM, "Gian Mario Tagliaretti" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
>> But, just so I'm sure I'm clear here, Mr. Stallman, it's my understanding
>> that you don't even actually _use_ the web, in any realist
On 3/4/10 3:00 PM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own
> -- instead of their own computers. That is the wrong direction to go.
That's a pretty black-and-white statement. Shared servers make a great deal
of sense for shared informati
On 3/4/10 6:08 PM, "Liam R E Quin" wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:45 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
>> In any case, I'm under the impression that a search warrant or similar order
>> is generally required in the US to get information regardless of whether
>
On 3/4/10 10:32 PM, "Liam R E Quin" wrote:
>>
>> Well, given this wide coverage, which I've somehow completely missed, there
>> shouldn't be much challenge to your producing an actual citation
>
> I was a little looser than I should have been in my wording.
Oh, indeed?
> For media
> coverage o
On 3/5/10 8:18 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>
> "Lefty (石鏡 )" writes:
>> the answer is [] not [] :avoid anything that runs on "a server".
>
> No one's suggested that.
"Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use ser
On 3/5/10 8:44 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
>
> "If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make
> toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete,
> except as platforms for a browser."
Just so we're completely clear here, I'd suggest that
"If everyt
On 3/5/10 9:19 AM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote:
>
> With all of the recent comments about how horrible foundation-list has
become,
> and how people are unsubscribing because of endless and
pointless
> argumentation, you *still* can't get yourself to refrain from
adding more and
> more heat to the thr
On 3/5/10 9:55 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded to
>> the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying
>>
&
On 3/5/10 10:18 AM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>
> I could help Richard and we could work together, but he has decided
> that I am a traitor of the movement.
Thanks for posting this, Miguel. It would seem to confirm that I'm not
incorrect in finding this baffling.
As someone who's reportedly been
Sorry, "reply" rather than "reply all"...
-- Forwarded Message
> From: David Schlesinger
> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:39:59 -0700
> To: Iain
> Conversation: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
> Subject: Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
>
> On 6/1/10 7:38 AM, "Iain" wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that your underl
On 6/1/10 9:18 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote:
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:41:19 -0700
> Subject: FW: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
> From: "Lefty (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQFA2QBsoQg==?= )"
>
> I find it quite amusing that
On 6/1/10 9:49 AM, "Claudio Saavedra" wrote:
>
> I wouldn't
> be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people
running the
> Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other
> members.
Happily for everyone, I'm not one of the people "running the Foundation",
I'm just another member. Ar
On 6/1/10 10:01 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote:
>
> Err .. nothing, except my extraordinary ability to mix their names ? :)
You're displaying quite a host of "extraordinary abilities" this morning.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.or
On 6/4/10 7:30 AM, "Bastien Nocera" wrote:
>
> People and corporations will not choose Free Software (or Open Source,
> or any derivative flavour) because it's free.
>
> First, you'll choose it because it's better, cheaper, and more
> customisable (not the "I can have checkboxes" kind, but the "
On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Saying "GNU/Linux" is a simple and effective way to teach people about
the real history of the system that many of them have been taught to
call "Linux". It is also very efficient, since it takes so little
work.
I was under the distin
(By the same token, if this particular bit of self-congratulatory
revisionism is suddenly fair game, I'd obviously be interested in
knowing that as well.)
--
Sent from my iPod
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gn
On 6/25/10 2:21 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote:
>
> It would be better if GNOME defined a precise set of rules (ie. "don't
> mention religion"). As for the hazy areas, common sense is a better
> judge than a set of written rules. If someone does something grossly
> inappropriate just don't invite th
On 6/25/10 8:41 AM, "Alan Cox" wrote:
>
>> That's completely irrelevant. Do we need to write a list of "no bag
>> stealing", "no puppy strangling" etc.? Sexual assaults are supposed to
>> be dealt with using law enforcement, not speaker guidelines.
No, because coming up with a "detailed list of
On 6/25/10 1:57 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote:
>
> {a completely sensible response}
Thanks, Brian.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On 6/25/10 3:06 PM, "Sergey Panov" wrote:
>
> Exactly! For instance,
> I am offended almost every time Lefty or Philip
Van Hoof say something ...
> almost anything nowdays.
-
Perhaps you should find some other mailing list to read if you're finding
this one that di
On 6/25/10 8:30 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote:
>
> I bet
> at least one person in the audience is offended when they see the
> presenter using a Mac. Or sporting a Windows t-shirt. Or using an
> iPod. Or mentioning that Apple did something better than GNOME.
> "Security, seize and escort the speake
On 6/25/10 3:39 PM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
>
> ( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)...
>
> "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very
> disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this."
By the way: Celeste wrote this while sitting in the auditorium at GCDS,
listening to
On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote:
>
> If it isn't clear already, the Speaker Guidelines are not intended to be
> used in frivolous ways.
It's certainly seems clear enough to me. It appeared, though, to be unclear
to Patryk.
> If people think that this needs to be spelled
> out more cle
On 6/25/10 4:15 PM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
> On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote:
>>
>> I can't imagine that anybody would take a complaint about someone giving
>> a talk and using a MacBook seriously, unless the situation were somehow
>> extraordinary (e.g. if a speaker had a "GNU/Lin
On 6/25/10 4:25 PM, "Joanmarie Diggs" wrote:
>
> I agree with this:
>
>> I also don't think the ending is appropriate: "These guidelines do not
>> constitute censorship since you have many other forums and
>> opportunities to say whatever you wish."
I pretty much agree with _you_. However, exper
Patryk seems to want to continue to pursue this discussion. I hadn't been
planning to, after Sriram's message, but since there's an obvious
interest...
On 6/26/10 12:58 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
On 6/26/10 7:09 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> The GNOME speaker guidelines were at least partly a reaction to my
> Saint IGNUcius comedy routine. So if I don't have a beef with these
> guidelines, why should anyone else?
Good question. It seems some folks are intent on "defending" you, wheth
I'm actually pretty bored by the completely futile rehashing of the same
ground on this matter, over and over, to no resolution. Clearly, RMS will
never feel anything other than "proud" about his ridicule of religion and
women. Clearly, Patryk and like-minded others, will never change their minds
a
On 6/26/10 5:45 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Stone Mirror wrote:
>> Again, very well said, and I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Alan.
>>
>> It honestly baffles me that some people seem to have such difficulty grasping
>> what seems so transparently obvious to m
On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not
> promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. You seem to be arguing
> against something different.
I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though
s
Philip van Hoof writes
>
> I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
I'd second this.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Don't we have more concrete issues to address?
We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided
to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of
"harmless fun" we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote
On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote:
>
> Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the
> bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to vote.
> I'm not sure the vote would be binding though.
Is there anything in the bylaws as to h
On 12/11/09 10:13 AM, "Les Harris" wrote:
>
> His position as I understand
it is that it is bad publicity for the FOSS
> movement if such a public
facing venue like Planet GNOME is used to promote
> proprietary
software.
I have not noted "promotion" of proprietary software on Planet GNOME. Can
an
On 12/12/09 5:34 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free
> software.
You're entitled to your opinion, but not to impose it on unwilling others.
> This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software
> users' freedom -- minimal in
On 12/12/09 5:33 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> What happened there is that some people misunderstood a joke in my
> speech, and others mistakenly accused me of intentionally disparaging
> people.
I personally find it telling that you somehow managed to find it within
yourself to provide an a
On 12/12/09 1:49 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote:
>
> However, since this problem seems to really happen only on rare
> occasion, and since it does not seem that any non-free organizations
> are really trying to use GNOME Planet to do any real advertising,
> then perhaps a disclaimer link to highlight
On 12/13/09 7:24 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>
> That's a rule (a policy), which is mild and doesn't involve jumping straight
> to blocking a whole blog. And it was suggested in heated opposition to this
> comment:
No, Ciaran: you've removed the entire surrounding context, and recast the
sense
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> "Unable to come up with" and "too dumb" are your own additions,
> which clearly were not present in the events themselves.
Clearly, a lot of "misunderstanding" was "present in the events themselves".
To what do you attribute this wide-spread "mi
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
> That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E
> Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from,
> see?
>
> These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
> non-free software even to get mone
On 12/13/09 8:49 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>
> Yes. You said that no one's yet demonstrated a problem, and you gave a
> solution for if the problem was demonstrated. You're solution was 100%
> compatible with Richard's solution.
Except that we now seem to have had the (non-existent) proble
In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own
pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which
I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual
subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own).
I've set
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" wrote:
> 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters :
>> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so,
>> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to
>> foundation-list and the value you see in it.
Actuall
On 12/14/09 8:28 PM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote:
>
> My proposal is mostly about recognizing that some discussions are
> better done among contributors only, and not the public. And only if a
> reasonable part of the community thinks that it's a good idea.
I understand the motivations, but I tend
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, "Sergey Panov" wrote:
>
> Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate "Open Source
> Advocates" ... .
No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the
Foundation's Advisory Board.
> Besides, L
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> ...I would not encourage anyone to use
> non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.
I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to
be asked:
Given the proposition that proprietary software is "il
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>
> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
Actually, this is something I'd suggeste
tions, confrontational and non-.
We should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able).
On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>>> Perhaps what we do ne
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some
reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile.
On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) survey
on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Lefty wrote:
>>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
>>> the statement abo
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote:
>
> Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
> containing that word is true is at best partial.
Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to
accusations that I wasn't being fair somehow by not defin
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but
> that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
> promote, use and write free software.
>
> We are excited when companies and individuals use GNO
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> source.
I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well
and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the
respondents.
Th
On 1/15/10 9:05 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake"
> among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to
&g
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't
bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it
also gains in clarity, I think.
> Free softwa
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
>
>> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
>> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
>> endorses.
>
> This is actually an excellent, and an important, point.
Having poked around a l
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I
> too have used it quite a bit.)
>
As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or
not.
___
fou
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Please stop trolling.
Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
privately, rather than publicly.
> How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or
> another desktop environment? If we respect the results
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
> We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
> members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
> your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying
> to achieve by doing that.
>
I inadvertently replied publicly to what had been a private message from
Owen, and for that, I apologize.
It was accidental, and I apologized to Owen offline as soon as he pointed my
error out to me. As I was getting ready to send it off, I noticed that Owen
was the sole recipient, assumed I'd hit
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, "Alan Cox" wrote:
>
>> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
>
> I don't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know that there _is_ a "fuss". That's one of the things I hope to
determine via the survey.
> "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard St
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
>> I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do
>> you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_,
>> Owen...?
>
> It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent
> discussio
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a
> troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result.
Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then.
Again, my impression has been that there are unquestioned and
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software"
> debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd
> vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other
> religious debates) that nothing will c
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I disagree quite strongly.
>
Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent
the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a
variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one; there are plenty of ot
On 1/16/10 1:10 PM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
> software and open source.
I'm pretty sure most people on the list have read the essay and understand
your view
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>
> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
> into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an
"unwritten policy", I'd encourage the Board to write it down in clea
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, "Shaun McCance" wrote:
>
>> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
>> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
>> and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
>> willful ignorance of our history,
On 1/17/10 12:37 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote:
>
> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
> and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
> willful ignorance of our history, cultur
On 1/17/10 5:20 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote:
>
> The FSF is welcome to give their advice; and should be treated with
> respect when they do give it, the same as anyone else. This is
> particularly true in this area, where we know we are walking a
> difficult line between freedom and conciliation with
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote:
>
>As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
whatsoever about
>any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
trying to drum one up. What
>exactly are you even trying to change? Is
there an official GNOME position
>statement
On 1/18/10 2:32 PM, "Dominic Lachowicz" wrote:
>
>> Can someone please fix that?
>
>Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of
GPL-compatible
>licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That
would clear up any
>possible confusion.
I gathered from what J5 said that this w
On 1/26/10 4:56 PM, "Andrew Cowie" wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 21:43 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>> (/me thinks of Vilanova)
>
> Which was a bloody awesome GUADEC, in no small measure because of the
> Ice Cream shop, and fluendo's Beach Party.
They're _all_ awesome, but yes. That.
> Oh? Inte
On 2/1/10 8:11 AM, "Vincent Untz" wrote:
>
> ...I'll just publish what I
> have and the raw results, so people could take a look and produce more
> interesting stats.
Sounds like the "open source way". =)
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-
95 matches
Mail list logo
