Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
software world, sure.
But I wonder which part
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There no contradiction with the Invariant part option: no invariant
part can describe a particular function.
You can provide an accurate documentation without changing a text
written by the original author that explain why he started to write
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
software world, sure.
But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
software world, sure.
But I wonder which
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like
proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted.
I have to agree with you here. I'm don't think that the fundamentals
of Richard's position on
6 matches
Mail list logo