Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It is and never was my intent to trick people into participation in >> AUCTeX by representing the situation different than it was. If you >> feel that you have been treated unfairly, I would ask you to >> specify your contributions to the AUCTeX manual that you would >> rather not have contributed had you felt reason to expect that the >> manual could get relicensed under the GFDL. I would then see >> whether they can be replaced with reasonable effort. > > Oh, let's not do that. I wouldn't say I have been tricked; I have > had a different expectation of the FSF than it turned out was true. > Call it being tricked, but then it wasn't you or the developer team > who did that. > > I'm glad that AUCTeX has a good manual, and I'm particularly happy > if I somehow contributed to that. When I signed the papers, I knew > that I gave the work (in part) out of my hands, so be it. I won't > further contribute anything ATM, but it's a totally worthless effort > to sort out what I have done once upon a time and back that out. > I'd rather do something that improves AUCTeX.
Thanks, -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
