[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> Jaime E . Villate <villate@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well.  For
>> > > example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
>> > > contradicted its own reasing in the "why free manuals are important"
>> > > document; the result was that the FSF changed the document.
>> > 
>> > Do you have the previous version of the document?
>> You can easily do that using the viewcvs interface to www.gnu.org
>>    http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/?cvsroot=www.gnu.org
>> ...
>> I've failed to find the document "why free manuals are important" that
>> Thomas Bushnell refers. Can he point out in viewcvs the two versions
>> where the alleged change of the document occurred and some prove of
>> the correlation with his protest?
> Well, that document is free-doc.html, so:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/philosophy/free-doc.html?cvsroot=www.gnu.org
> CVS begins Feb 13 2001.  The first version is pretty much the same as
> the first. Did this happens before 2001?

The oldest version the Wayback Machine has is from February 24, 1999,
and is identical to the current version.  See 



Reply to: