Re: "keep non-free" proposal

To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:20:10 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 1a803558e2b6bb464c96cb53b32a0e7d@bouncing.localnet>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040130033036.GA15000@azure.humbug.org.au>

On 2004-01-30 03:30:36 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>wrote:

RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he
thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do
you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's?

I don't think RMS has ever claimed GFDL-covered works are freesoftware. Has he expressed an opinion on that, or are you usingtelepathic devices?

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "keep non-free" proposal
  - From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Re: "keep non-free" proposal
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

References:
- Re: "keep non-free" proposal
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

Prev by Date: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Next by Date: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Previous by thread: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Next by thread: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread