Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:52:20 +0000:
> В Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:30:06 +0000, Duncan написа: > >> Requiring, so-called ethically or legally, a specific name extension, >> "GNU/"whatever, would be unfree. > > The GNU project does not demand anything of that kind; this is an > educational campaign. Actually, it /is/ demanding it, ethically but not legally, thus the educational campaign. My point was that it doesn't have to be legally required to be wrong, if they're doing the moral/ethical equivalent, which is what this is, from my perspective. If it's unfree with SugarCRM (and with the xfree86 license change that lead to the xorg split), it's unfree with GNU. The same principle applies in all three cases, regardless of whether it's a legal requirement or whether it's simply a claim of an ethical/moral requirement, which if not met is a wrong that an attempt must be made to right. So why is the argument made that SugarCRM and xfree86 doing it is wrong, but GNU doing it is somehow not only right, but that not complying is wrong? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
