On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:30:03 + (UTC)
Duncan wrote:
>
> > You criticize RMS for "requiring, either ethically or legally, that
> > they use a particular name", but you concede that there is no legal
> > requirement, so you must mean an ethical requirement. But you've just
> > said above "there's
Greg Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:18:35
+:
> You criticize RMS for "requiring, either ethically or legally, that they
> use a particular name", but you concede that there is no legal
> requirement, so you must mean an ethical requir
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:08:48 +, Duncan wrote:
> But there's not an ethical requirement. That's what I've been saying.
...
> Requiring, either ethically or legally, that they use a particular name,
> is quite something else, and that makes it unfree, whether that
> requirement is legal or jus
Greg Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:14:34
+:
> Stallman /can/ see it; he has discussed this point, and he agrees with
> you. He does not demand the name GNU/Linux. He argues that it's
> appropiate and asks that it be used because th
Greg Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:29:22
+:
> So, let me see if I understand your principle. True freedom includes
> the right not to be criticized for discourtesy or for failure to give
> credit where credit is due. Do I have that
On 10/10/2008 Greg Lee wrote:
So, let me see if I understand your principle. True freedom
includes the right not to be criticized for discourtesy
or for failure to give credit where credit is due. Do I have
that right? Even if there is an ethical requirement, this
must not be /claimed/, for fe
On 10/10/2008 Rob wrote:
If GNU changed the GPL to add "and you must refer to your product as
GNU/Productname", you would be right. But you're comparing two
controversial license changes, which definitely have a legal
component, to
what's essentially a branding campaign in GNU's case. "Don't
On 10/10/2008 Yavor Doganov wrote:
Which is the problem at hand we are discussing. "Hacker" also has an
accepted meaning -- "computer security breaker" -- but this meaning
is
utterly wrong.
While I agree with you on the above, I must point out that languages
change and evolve. The word "co
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:16:48 +, Duncan wrote:
> 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, let me see
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:34:55 +, Duncan wrote:
> As for credit, yes, they deserve and get credit for the apps they
> created. Great. But insisting on ranking one's own credit so highly
> for a collected work, as with the SugarCRM license, simply wouldn't and
> couldn't work if everyone were t
George Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct
2008 07:34:19 -0500:
> Duncan,
> Have you heard anything on this? Do you know if Gentoo is getting
> close to unmasking gmime 2.4.0?
I haven't, but I've been busy working on other bugs of l
On Friday 10 October 2008 08:33, Rob wrote:
> we will sue you," and GNU is saying, "comply or we will continue to
> irritate you." But the people who don't comply would be irritated by
> GNU as a political entity whether or not they said anything,
That should have read, "...the people who are ir
On Friday 10 October 2008 08:16, Duncan wrote:
> 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.
> So why is the argument made that SugarCRM and xfree86 doing it is wrong,
> but
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:36:40 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 29
> Sep 2008 16:38:35 -0500:
>
> > I found this bug [0] concerning pan and gmime 2.4.0, but it appears
> > that it is unfinished.
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008
09:52:20 +:
> В Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:30:06 +, Duncan написа:
>
>> Requiring, so-called ethically or legally, a specific name extension,
>> "GNU/"whatever, would be unfree.
>
> The GNU project
В Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:30:06 +, 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.
> But Linux has an accepted general meaning.
Whic
16 matches
Mail list logo
