David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> >From offical dutites, yes, because Thomas went against the policies of > >> >> the GNU project (outright refusing to use the GFDL in a GNU project > >> > > >> > Interesting. So much about GNU freedom of speech. > >> > >> As the maintainer of a GNU project, one is responsible for > >> implementing the GNU policies. That's not a matter of freedom of > > ^ > > | > > Grand-Imperator's ----+ (aka GNU President) > > Of course the president of the FSF sets the policies of the GNU > project he initiated and is in charge of. That's nothing to be > surprised about.
Really? While US President has the power to veto decisions (except constitutional amendments) made by Congress, the Congress has the power to negate presidential vetos (2/3 majority vote). > > > And what exactly did Bushnell failed to implement apart from voicing > > dissent regarding (un)freeness of the GFDL? > > Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired. It was not a problem > of "voicing dissent" with the documentation policies, but rather of > failing to implement them in a project where he was in the officially > appointed position for doing so. And what did he failed to implement? Care to provide an example of his refusal to adhere in *implementing* something? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
