On Dec 3, 2007 1:11 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very
much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in
general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications
for GNOME aren't clear to me.
There is no schedule for the next FDL. Since Wikipedia has made up
its mind, I want to (and owe it to them to) work on this soon.
However, there is time to listen to suggestions, if they come soon.
___
foundation-list mailing list
On Nov 30, 2007 3:56 PM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very
much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in
general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications
for GNOME aren't clear to me.
My immediate
If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very
much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in
general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications
for GNOME aren't clear to me.
Would you like to pick someone to discuss this with the FSF?
On Nov 30, 2007 3:51 PM, Shaun McCance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
Software Movement in general?
I
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
No. (send it out sooner is not a valid answer.)
2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
Software Movement in general?
By
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO.
So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them?
No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who
has not
Hi,
Le lundi 26 novembre 2007, à 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman a écrit :
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
I might have changed a word or two, and I would have liked to see this
statement out sooner, as others said... But no big change.
2. How do you
Right on, but you could make sure not only geeks noticed the many poison
pills of OOXML. This discussion is an evident proof one of the poison
pills is getting at people.
This discussion is not about supporting OOXML.
The discussion is about how to prevent OOXML from becoming
On Nov 26, 2007 2:54 PM, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
Software Movement in general?
[snip]
More long-term, working with the online desktop
quote who=Jeff Waugh
quote who=Richard Stallman
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political
grounds because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To
succeed, we need
quote who=Richard Stallman
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political grounds
because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To succeed,
we need to fight OOXML under the terms
Hey,
On 11/26/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
Mmmm, I would have included a line in all-caps saying GNOME
Foundation doesn't like OOXML, we have someone in the committee
because standard or not Ms is
On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
I wish it were more explicit about how the Foundation feels that the
ODF folks have been undermining the standards process. It isn't
obvious to
Hi,
2007/11/26, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
I would change the date it was released. :-) I think the most serious
problem about GNOME Foundation participation on ECMA TC45-M was that
it wasn't properly
15 matches
Mail list logo
