Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?

[Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org>]

MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
> 
> 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use "we"
> at all, so defining "we" is irrelevant.


I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:

        "If providing any sort of crap _we_ can was a service to our
        users, there wouldn't be any DFSG.
        _We_ believe providing a non-free manual is a disservice to
        our users. If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on
        their encrypted filesystem, _we_ feel it is not suitable for
        them."

If you are not capable to read carefully mails you are talking about
before pretending "this is irrelevant", I do not believe the rest of
you mail can be of any interest. Sorry. 








-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english