On 12/04/10 16:30, Paul Sutton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Beardall wrote:
>
>> I certainly don't want to be pushing a political agenda (especially
>> where it's not wanted) and Alan makes a perfectly reasonable point but I
>> can't help but consider the f
For my penneth worth, I saw no flame in this discussion.
Everyone conducting themselves impeccably.
:)
JT
On 12 April 2010 16:30, Paul Sutton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Beardall wrote:
> > I certainly don't want to be pushing a political agenda (especial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Beardall wrote:
> I certainly don't want to be pushing a political agenda (especially
> where it's not wanted) and Alan makes a perfectly reasonable point but I
> can't help but consider the following: For a group of Linux supporters
> [albeit, a
I didnt mean any hostilities either, it was a genuine question. Its did
seem strange to me that something like this bill is not discussed on a
newsgroup like this. Nothing has been brought forward about it at all. I
am not really sure why its turned into a flame.
Sad really,
John,.
On 12/04/
On 12/04/10 16:06, Tommy Pyatt wrote:
> Apologies Alan, I did not mean any hostility in my response to your
> email, which was a fair and reasonable comment. I just wanted to point
> out that I have no problems with Paula's original email, as I'm sure I'm
> not the only one.
No need to apologise.
I do see Alan's point - and I've said most of what I felt needed to be
said now :)
Paula
/ www.fossbox.org.uk
pa...@fossbox.org.uk
Tel: 020 7481 8479
Skype: bastubis
/
Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> On 12/04/10 15:13, John Matthews wrote:
>
>> I have to admit, I wondered why such a subject shoul
Apologies Alan, I did not mean any hostility in my response to your email,
which was a fair and reasonable comment. I just wanted to point out that I
have no problems with Paula's original email, as I'm sure I'm not the only
one.
Since I see you are using gmail, assuming that you are accessing you
On 12/04/10 15:13, John Matthews wrote:
> I have to admit, I wondered why such a subject should be so taboo. It
> affects us a lot more than we really would like to admit.
>
> I would genuinely like to know why it should have such a negative
> response from somebody like Alan, and why it is discour
I think Alan's getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop here. In all fairness
(and I'm not trying to put words in his mouth) I think he was simply trying
to advise that discussion lists need to stay within certain parameters in
order to stop going off topic and thus risk descending into slanging
match
I have to admit, I wondered why such a subject should be so taboo. It
affects us a lot more than we really would like to admit.
I would genuinely like to know why it should have such a negative
response from somebody like Alan, and why it is discouraged.
John
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
htt
On 12/04/10 13:14, Alan Lord (News) wrote:
> On 12/04/10 13:10, pa...@fossbox.org.uk wrote:
>> Yes, I know - I shouldn't rant either cos I'm an NGO and not supposed to
>> be political ;)
>
> I'm not sure what the "rules" are for this mailing list but it seems to
> me this thread has left the discus
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:15 +0100, Alan Lord (News)"
wrote:
> I'm not sure what the "rules" are for this mailing list but it seems
> to me this thread has left the discussion of the deb and is becoming a
> general political rant. Presumably there are other lists where stuff
> not really to do with
I certainly don't want to be pushing a political agenda (especially where
it's not wanted) and Alan makes a perfectly reasonable point but I can't
help but consider the following: For a group of Linux supporters [albeit, a
specific distribution], it seems a bit odd that there isn't more discussion
Personally, I am quite interested in discussions of this type as laws
affecting copyright have significant implications in the FOSS community, and
I assume that there are many others on the list that are interested also. I
understand your point Alan, but I don't see the value in discouraging this
t
On 12/04/10 13:10, pa...@fossbox.org.uk wrote:
> Yes, I know - I shouldn't rant either cos I'm an NGO and not supposed to
> be political ;)
I'm not sure what the "rules" are for this mailing list but it seems to
me this thread has left the discussion of the deb and is becoming a
general politica
Yes, I know - I shouldn't rant either cos I'm an NGO and not supposed to
be political ;)
Maybe the answer for an org like Canonical (who'd be noticed!) is to be
extremely careful picking issues and to ensure that the issue is the
legitimacy of Ubuntu/FOSS - it could be useful to focus on the softw
I've got it, too. I think it's difficult and uncertain territory for
something like Canonical to get involved in and free software supporters run
the risk of being painted even more like anarchists by raising our voices
but I think not doing so risks a number of the freedoms we rely on in being
abl
Just got a mail from 38 Degrees (don't know who else got one). They're
embarking on a campaign against lobbying which is the most sensible
course of action I can think of for those who want to continue to take
action about this:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/PPCDEBlobbying
This isn't j
18 matches
Mail list logo
