On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 19:38 +0200, David Diaz wrote: > I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it should abide > the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the package's users.
I understand your point. I guess I just still hold out hope that the FSF may one day again publish documentation under a license that's compliant with the DFSG... > Note the comment in the vrms description package: ;-) Actually, I wrote that. Way back when, I'm the one who dreamed up the package, came up with the name, and wrote the man page. The motivation was a conversation a guy who used to work for me (Bill Geddes) was having with RMS about Debian non-free. Bill wrote the original Perl implementation of vrms. None of that is particularly important, except to assure you that I'm completely aware that vrms has never really fulfilled the original vision I/we had for it... Do you care about this enough to want to help work on vrms? Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
