Thanks for adopting the change I proposed.
Even if a program is proprietary, we invite its developers to use
GNOME as its interface platform.
I think it's a bit more negative
It has to be -- we must not be positive about proprietary software.
However, being more positive about
Your suggestions would probably be better received if they didn't sound so
much like orders.
I'm sorry if the tone rubbed you the wrong way, but I think it was
a misunderstanding. I was politely asking for someone to fix some bugs.
Vincent's proposal to explicitly list the acceptable lic
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 08:20 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
>
> Personally, I think we are delighted that they decided to use GNOME.
> We aren't praising the proprietary software but expressing happiness
> that they have decided to use free software that we have developed.
>
> My impression
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 08:20 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> I think we gain more by being excited and asking them to join our
> community, meet us, learn more about free software, etc than if we
> temper it down. When you praise someone that's learning something, you
> don't say "that's ok but it'
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Stormy Peters
wrote:
Personally, I think we are delighted that they decided to use GNOME.
We aren't praising the proprietary software but expressing happiness
that they have decided to use free software that we have developed.
My impression is that the communit
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> In response to the first draft, I pointed out that it rejected the
> ideas of the free software movement, and the only form of support it
> gave was use of the term "free software" itself. Your new draft
> cancels out that little support
In response to the first draft, I pointed out that it rejected the
ideas of the free software movement, and the only form of support it
gave was use of the term "free software" itself. Your new draft
cancels out that little support, by pairing the term with "open source".
To fit GNOME's position
On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
Also, the examples were just that, examples. I should have not put
Lefty inside them as that was not necessary. Apologies if it looked
like I was attacking Lefty.
No worries. I'm pretty used to being accused of things I haven't
On 19/01/10 02:49, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
When a person falsely acc
Hi, I'm not a Foundation member, but I would like to do some
suggestions:
> > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software
> > but
> > that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
> > promote, use and write free software.
This is a self c
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 01:49 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> > >> You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attack
Hi Richard,
Your suggestions would probably be better received if they didn't sound so
much like orders.
The GNOME project has said "free and open source" for a long time both on
our web pages and in press releases as far back as 2000. Changing it is
likely to bring up a long debate like the one
Hi Lefty,
Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010, à 21:45 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) a écrit :
> On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote:
> >
> >As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
> whatsoever about
> >any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
> trying to drum one up. What
Hey,
Le dimanche 17 janvier 2010, à 15:56 -0500, john palmieri a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> > It has been pointed out that in fact it has been written down:
> > http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
Those are prerequisites for project that people want
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> >> You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
> >
> > When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in
On 1/18/10 2:32 PM, "Dominic Lachowicz" wrote:
>
>> Can someone please fix that?
>
>Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of
GPL-compatible
>licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That
would clear up any
>possible confusion.
I gathered from what J5 said that this w
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
>>>
>>> "The project must be free/open source software."
>
> That text ought to say, simply, "The project must be free software".
>
> Adding "open source" makes the meaning less clear. There
>> http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites
>>
>> "The project must be free/open source software."
That text ought to say, simply, "The project must be free software".
Adding "open source" makes the meaning less clear. There are open
source licenses which are not free; "/open source" introdu
Hi,
Stormy Peters wrote:
> My apologies for continuing the thread. My personal inbox and IM is
> still going and it was suggested that I send out the version of the
> statement that says "free and open source".
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free and open source software but that
> does not
My apologies for continuing the thread. My personal inbox and IM is still
going and it was suggested that I send out the version of the statement that
says "free and open source".
The GNOME Foundation believes in free and open source software but that does
not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary s
Thanks ever so much for that clarification, Emilio.
__
Sent from my Steve-Phone
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, persona
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> I've suggested that the first sentence should instead read something like
> "The GNOME Foundation believes in and promotes free/open source
> software..."
>
> Hope this clarifies things.
>
>
>
And I agreed as GNOME often uses "free and open
On 15/01/10 17:31, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks.
When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in his surveys THEN
you apparently don't need to respond with the ad-hominem bomb?
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote:
>
>As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy
whatsoever about
>any of this until you and Philip seemingly started
trying to drum one up. What
>exactly are you even trying to change? Is
there an official GNOME position
>statement
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 17:55 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> We use the terms "open" and "open source" elsewhere, and it hasn't created
> particular controversy, or visibly "pushed us in the direction of
> proprietary software", as far as I can tell. Why is it controversial here in
> particular?
As far
On 1/17/10 5:20 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote:
>
> The FSF is welcome to give their advice; and should be treated with
> respect when they do give it, the same as anyone else. This is
> particularly true in this area, where we know we are walking a
> difficult line between freedom and conciliation with
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:52 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> [CUT]
>
>> The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
>> aspect of GNOME's philosophy. So it's something worth maintaining. How do
>> we ensure
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> > Using the term "free software" helps because it leads people to make a
> > connection with a philosophy that answers exactly that question. Other
> > helpful measures can include more prominently displaying the fact that
> GNOME
> > in
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:52 +, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[CUT]
> The last few mails in this thread suggest that people are happy with this
> aspect of GNOME's philosophy. So it's something worth maintaining. How do
> we ensure that newcomers see the philosophy and the reasons for avoiding or
"Lefty (石鏡 )" writes:
>> "Open source" doesn't imply any reason or policy for rejecting
>> proprietary software...
>
> I'm afraid I really have to disagree here: "open source software" is
> software which is made available under a license which satisfies the Open
> Source Definition
The Open Sou
On 1/17/10 12:37 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote:
>
> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
> and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
> willful ignorance of our history, cultur
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 )
> wrote:
> >> On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-fr
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, "Shaun McCance" wrote:
>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
>>> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
>>> and common understanding that this is the p
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, "Shaun McCance" wrote:
>
>> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down.
>> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear
>> and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost
>> willful ignorance of our history,
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>> On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>>>
>>> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
>> software
>>> into its repositories.
>>
>> I'm not personall
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 12:37 -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> > On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
> >>
> >> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
> > software
> >> into its repositories.
> >
> > I'm not pe
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>>
>> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
> software
>> into its repositories.
>
> I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an
> "u
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote:
>
> GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free
software
> into its repositories.
I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an
"unwritten policy", I'd encourage the Board to write it down in clea
"Lefty (石鏡 )" writes:
> a statement which represents the Foundation (which is, as Stormy has
> pointed out, no more than its members)
This doesn't mean that the Foundation speaks for each of its members. The
Foundation speaks for itself and GNOME.
GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohi
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
>
>
> You all represent GNOME when you are out in the world.
>
Let me clarify a bit more.
I think that we all represent the groups we are a part of all the time,
especially when we are the only one from that group present.
For example, if I'
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
Dave,
[CUT]
> > If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example
> > question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information.
>
> Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of
>
On 1/16/10 1:10 PM, "Richard Stallman" wrote:
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
> software and open source.
I'm pretty sure most people on the list have read the essay and understand
your view
Anyway - as I say, for me they're essentially synonyms. For others,
including RMS, they're not.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free
software and open source.
GNOME is a GNU package, and was fou
It is clear that GNOME needs to do more to educate its community,
including the Foundation members, about the importance of freedom;
that is, to communicate and support the ideas of the free software
movement.
The draft statement posted uses the term free software, but
it does not support
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I disagree quite strongly.
>
Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent
the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a
variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one; there are plenty of ot
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> I speak as "part of GNOME", perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The
> distinction is critically important. "Speaking _for_ GNOME" is a job for
> Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that
> responsibility.
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission
> statement should not use the terminology "free software" to the exclusion of
> the term "open source software". In fact, in light of what you've said, I
> believe I feel even a little more strongly abo
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software"
> debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd
> vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other
> religious debates) that nothing will c
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a
> troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result.
Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then.
Again, my impression has been that there are unquestioned and
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
>> I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do
>> you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_,
>> Owen...?
>
> It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent
> discussio
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
> Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
> privately, rather than publicly.
Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software"
debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:31 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
> >
> > We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
> > members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
> > your choice to focus on it, and I don
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, "Alan Cox" wrote:
>
>> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
>
> I don't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know that there _is_ a "fuss". That's one of the things I hope to
determine via the survey.
> "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard St
> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by
> law or custom.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
"Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief
that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary
software as acceptable in most cases.
Whether that is true
Le ven. 15 janv. 2010 à 18:57:52 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
> (again).
Thanks Dave. I am coming late into
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
> We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
> members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
> your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying
> to achieve by doing that.
>
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Please stop trolling.
Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
privately, rather than publicly.
> How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or
> another desktop environment? If we respect the results
I think what Lefty was trying to do was show that the list/community/group
has lots of different opinions and we all make lots of assumptions whenever
we talk about "the community".
That said, I believe surveys are a very hard way to make definitive
statements.
Stormy
2010/1/15 Andy Tai
> Left
Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a survey
to try to convert them to be Android developers.
What you are doing is kind of like that here.
2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 )
> Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> some reason to be on the
Dave, Philip,
Can you take this one offline unless there's another point you'd like to
discuss with the whole Foundation list?
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> > Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > I fully agree
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
> (again).
As Lefty is clarifying here, this isn't tro
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:15 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
> >
> >> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
> >> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
> >> endorses.
> >
> > This is actu
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
>> I believe we can state it this way ...
>>
>> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
>> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
>> softw
I will amend to say free and open source in the least awkward way I can.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
>
> I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness.
> (I too have used it quite a bi
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I
> too have used it quite a bit.)
>
As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or
not.
___
fou
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
>
>> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
>> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
>> endorses.
>
> This is actually an excellent, and an important, point.
Having poked around a l
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> I believe we can state it this way ...
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
> software. We believe, promote, use and write free software.
>
>
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> source.
Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
(again).
> This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's
> results are open for everyb
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the
> word "illegitimate": Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of
> proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is
> archived if you don't believe me.
"illegitimate" is not a
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
>
> I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which
> doesn't
> bother me, I used to say "free and open source softwa
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't
bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it
also gains in clarity, I think.
> Free softwa
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
[CUT]
> We could also amend the statement to say "free and open source
> software" but it gets awkward.
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you
I too usually prefer to use the term open source software. However, in this
context, I think the term free software is more appropriate.
To me, open source software is any software that meets the OSI definition,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It is also the way most companies talk
about free
On 1/15/10 9:05 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake"
> among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to
> believe that the consensus among the members is
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> > On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> Hi Stormy!
Mistake, I was replying to Lefty.
Sorry Lefty. You know I like your féminin side ;)
> > > I fully agree with this s
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:50 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy,
> Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep
> the discussion on the actions not people's characters.
>
> By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into
> arguments instead of productiv
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
Hi Stormy!
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well
> and (based
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> source.
I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well
and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the
respondents.
Th
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but
> that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
> promote, use and write free software.
>
> We are excited when companies and individuals use GNO
Hi Philip,
Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep the
discussion on the actions not people's characters.
By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into arguments
instead of productive discussions.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Philip Van
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy!
> I believe we can state it this way ...
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
> software. We believe, promote, use and write free so
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the
> disruptive people. It is a blanket, emo
I believe we can state it this way ...
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software
but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We
believe, promote, use and write free software.
We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies b
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> > The only person who here might have intentionally created the
> > ambiguity
> > is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary:
> > Richard.
> > I use "might"
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> > wrote:
>
> > > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
> > > are useful and insightful.
> >
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> > > bias. For me they are be
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote:
>
> Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
> containing that word is true is at best partial.
Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to
accusations that I wasn't being fair somehow by not defin
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
> > are useful and insightful.
>
> > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> Hi Lefty,
>
> > Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> > some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim
> > Vasile.
>
> > On a
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Hi Xavier,
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> > bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
>
> Giving one definition of a word,
Hi Philip,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
containing that word is true i
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
> pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be.
The results show 38 % of people non involved with free software, there
should be a way to temporary remov
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:11 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi Vincent,
> Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
> > surveys.
>
> What do you mean?
I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is need
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
> surveys.
What do you mean?
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
f
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
Hi Lefty,
> Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim
> Vasile.
> On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute)
> surve
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some
reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile.
On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) survey
on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite
96 matches
Mail list logo