On 2006-11-15, Oleg Verych [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-11-15, hendrik wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:00:37AM +, Tyler wrote:
I don't know that it's enough reason to go on living, but you will find
those docs (in)conveniently stored in the package
emacs21-common-non-dfsg, in the
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why duck? Everyone knows that the only component missing from emacs is
generally a good text editor. :-)
And what's wrong with viper? :-)
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which devs are the ones responsible here: the Debian devs who put it
there, or the upstream ones that presumably put non-free constraints on
the documentatin license? Or is it all a big misunderstanding?
-- hendrik
Honestly, I think both sides are suffering from
Oleg Verych wrote:
It's here.
Congratulations.
Are there reasons to live?
Yes: http://www.vim.org/
(ducks)
:-p
--
George Borisov
DXSolutions Ltd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's here.
Congratulations.
Are there reasons to live?
--
-o--=O`C /. .\
#oo'L O o
___=E M.--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:36:58AM +, George Borisov wrote:
Oleg Verych wrote:
It's here.
Congratulations.
Are there reasons to live?
Yes: http://www.vim.org/
(ducks)
Why duck? Everyone knows that the only component missing from emacs is
generally a good text editor. :-)
I don't know that it's enough reason to go on living, but you will find
those docs (in)conveniently stored in the package
emacs21-common-non-dfsg, in the non-free repos.
At some point I wonder if the devs will realize that they undermine
their efforts to encourage users to use a dfsg-free
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:00:37AM +, Tyler wrote:
I don't know that it's enough reason to go on living, but you will find
those docs (in)conveniently stored in the package
emacs21-common-non-dfsg, in the non-free repos.
At some point I wonder if the devs will realize that they
hendrik writes:
Which devs are the ones responsible here: the Debian devs who put it
there, or the upstream ones that presumably put non-free constraints on
the documentatin license? Or is it all a big misunderstanding?
Some of each.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
The GFDL is not DFSG-compliant as it specifies invariant parts.
--
Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2006-11-15, hendrik wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:00:37AM +, Tyler wrote:
I don't know that it's enough reason to go on living, but you will find
those docs (in)conveniently stored in the package
emacs21-common-non-dfsg, in the non-free repos.
Sure i can. Anyone can. But this is
11 matches
Mail list logo