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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Mon, 10 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the
> social contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks
> haven't thought things through very far.

Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even
indicated what GR 2004-003 was going to do to ajt.[1][2]

   On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
   > And I don't see much point making the decision on whether we move
   > non-free documentation out of main (and keep it out) as part of
   > the social contract rather than doing it in the usual way:
   > deciding we want to do it, and having the appropriate delegates
   > and maintainers decide how to work towards that.
   I would imagine that making the decision as part of the SC would be
   equivalent to "deciding we want to do it". [1]

[Not that anyone was expecting the reaction that it got, but we knew
what it was going to do regarding the documentation!=software issue.]

Don Armstrong

I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
 -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html


Reply to: