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
1:http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040129.175834.81387bcc.html
2:http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040130.083703.c5778b4e.html
--
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
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: