Am Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 00:17 schrieb Dave Crossland:
>
> The presence of a proprietary userland binary in the main/official
> distribution makes it a crippled device which actively impose upon our
> Freedoms.
>
IMHO the right way to deal with this particular problem is to break
the GL comm
On 24/01/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we were to lose the FSF perspective at any stage down the road, then
we could end up only able to buy highly sophisticated yet crippled
devices which actively impose upon our Freedoms. Like now, but worse.
In that sense, I imagine the Ne
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:59 +, Declan Naughton wrote:
> "Threat to unregister" I never knew you considered me to be such a
> valuable asset. I posted pretty much exclusively to the GNU/Linux or
> Linux related threads.
The point of a community is that everyone has something to contribute.
>
Here is my reason for using the term "GNU/Linux".
It's fair to both the Linux developers and to the GNU project.
Why is it fair?
Well so far I have yet to see either a Linux userland or a
GNU kernel so it's a MIXED environment and should be treated
like that.
There are also other MIXED environm
On 1/24/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:08 +, Declan Naughton wrote:
> > The "Free Your Phone" post was perhaps the most interesting announcement
> > we've had yet - Sean thinks we're going to be building the foundation
> > for Ubiquitous Computing - I t
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:08 +, Declan Naughton wrote:
> > The "Free Your Phone" post was perhaps the most interesting announcement
> > we've had yet - Sean thinks we're going to be building the foundation
> > for Ubiquitous Computing - I think he's right, but this positive message
> > was compl
On 1/24/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:19 +, Declan Naughton wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about we let our Agenda be the cool technology and innovation
> > instead?
>
> So freedom has nothing to do with it?
>
>
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:19 +, Declan Naughton wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about we let our Agenda be the cool technology and innovation
> > instead?
>
> So freedom has nothing to do with it?
>
> I wouldn't be too surprised. I read some nice stuff fr
On 1/24/07, Richard Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about we let our Agenda be the cool technology and innovation
instead?
So freedom has nothing to do with it?
I wouldn't be too surprised. I read some nice stuff from Sean alright,
but IF you just wrote an apt description of "our Agenda"
On 1/24/07 6:11 AM, "Dave Crossland" wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On 23/01/07, David Ford wrote:
>> You must be reading a different link. Sean's email most clearly states
>> "in the form of a user's manual that will give credit to GNU." He also
>> clearly stated "We'll just call it OpenMoko."
>
> Co
10 matches
Mail list logo
