Bdale Garbee wrote: > 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...
The facts are that a "Virtual RMS" is a RMS not a DFSG. Please, rename the package. Do not confuse the users of your package. > > Note the comment in the vrms description package: > 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? I am overloaded with this www.gnuherds.org Best regards, Davi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
