[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 19:32:13 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)

Alfred M. Szmidt, le dim. 27 oct. 2019 14:10:46 -0400, a ecrit:
> > > we have participants that clearly do not agree with the GNU projects
> > > stance on an issue.
> > > 
> > > This shows the error quite clearly in why having the community
> > > deciding philosophical topics of the GNU project is a grave danger.
> >
> > No, this shows that the philosophy is not that clearly defined: what
> > are these invariant sections in the documentation, are they really free
> > software?
> Just like software isn't an mammal, it would be wrong to apply what
> applies to mammals as it does to software, so making the case that
> manuals are software

I typed too fast indeed, scratch "software" to put "documentation" there
instead. Software and documentation indeed have different effect on the
control you have over the software.


That'd rather be
which actually talks about invariant sections.

Again, I don't think it is the time and place to actually discuss the
question I raised above, I just mean that yes, this part is questioning
even after reading all of the explanations, e.g. if the glibc
abortion joke had been in a invariant section.


reply via email to

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