<quote who="David Diaz" date="Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:56:57AM +0200"> > Bdale Garbee wrote: > > David Diaz wrote: > > > I personally think too if the package name is "Virtual RMS" it > > > should abide the RMS principles, just to avoid confusion to the > > > package's users. > > > > I understand your point. I guess I just still hold out hope that > > the FSF may one day again publish documentation under a license > > that's compliant with the DFSG... > > The facts are that a "Virtual RMS" is a RMS not a DFSG. Please, rename > the package. Do not confuse the users of your package.
I don't think the users of VRMS are particularly confused. Do you have suggestions for a better name? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
