[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?

From: Jeremy Bowen
Subject: Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:34:56 -0500

> From: Galen Boyer [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:26 PM
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, address@hidden wrote:
> > 
> > With respect, this sentence should read "...lays down four
> > criteria for software to be considered free under the FSF
> > definition of the word 'free'."
> Not on a GNU list.  The default should be the GNU definition.
> Other newsgroups, I agree.

Help: - generic
Emacs: - GNU
Windows: - MS

I don't follow your logic of this being a "GNU" list.  It's at *least* 1/2
(even 2/3) non GNU :-) We're discussing a product for MS Windows so surely
the context here is at best ambiguous.

And anyway, if the FSF decided to define Pi=3 that would still not make it
so, no matter where you talked about it.

> > The FSF is not the only "one true path".
> Try saying that on alt.religion.emacs.  Come on, I dare you...

Shouldn't that be alt.religion.scientology.emacs.

After all, it seems that the RMS brainwashing is almost total for some
participants :-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]