quote who=David Diaz date=Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:56:57AM +0200
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
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
David Diaz wrote:
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
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
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:24 +0200, Davi Leal wrote:
It is funny that Debian's vrms lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg
vrms is the Virtual RMS which lists the
non-free packages installed on your system.
At least if Debian want to keep the GFDL is not free principle, Debian
should either
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it funny that Debian's vrms lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg
(vrms is the Virtual RMS which lists the non-free packages installed
on your system). At least if they want to keep the GFDL is not free
principle, they should either rename vrms,
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 19:38 +0200, 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
