Re: GR: Removal of non-free
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GR: Removal of non-free
- From: Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:54:40 -0500
- Message-id: <20040102045439.GT1765@deadbeast.net>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20031231162236.C28449@links.magenta.com>
- References: <20031224204311.GA4684@suffields.me.uk> <20031225084047.GA17904@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031225231511.GA9327@suffields.me.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031227041255.GC1734@suffields.me.uk> <email@example.com> <20031227180105.GD9883@suffields.me.uk> <20031229123524.W28449@links.magenta.com> <20031231203239.GC11133@deadbeast.net> <20031231162236.C28449@links.magenta.com>
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 04:22:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I was talking about the "drop non-free, but don't amend the social
> contract" proposal.
> I get the idea you're talking about the "drop non-free and drop clause
> 5 of the social contract" proposal.
> If so, we're talking past each other.
Nope, I was talking about the former. I see nothing more or less
"honest" about the latter.
G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if
firstname.lastname@example.org | you really make them think, they'll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. -- Don Marquis
Description: Digital signature