On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 11:33 +0930, Karl Goetz wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:48:53 -0400 > Ted Smith <ted...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 07:11 +0100, Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - > > wrote: > > > Ted Smith wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:05:01 +0000 > > > >> Eric Morey <e...@glodime.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I found this post and comments on Vrms to interesting: > > > >>> http://blog.nizarus.org/2009/09/are-you-a-100-free-user > > > >>> > > > >>> Eric... > > > > > > > nice one ted > > > > > > > > RMS would certainly not agree with (much of) this output. > > > > > > some guy called ompaul made a comment about it on the web page > > > pointing out that we kind of IGNORE IT COMPLETELY but it seems he > > > was wrong.. ;-) > > > > > > MOST of us ignore it. ;-) > > > > > Actually, there's a long history (going back to Gobuntu) of trying to > > reform VRMS. It's never really taken off. > > > > All it would take is a small bit of ubuntu-ization to make the > > Or a not-so-small bit, as it requires patching all the packages which > (in)correctly report themselves as free/non-free. > Really? I thought vrms just looked at which repository the package was in, but maybe it has a blacklist of GFDL packages or something like that. > > behavior correct in Ubuntu (which uses the FSF designation of > > freedom) and gNewSense. Nobody wants to write the perl code, I > > well.... for some value of 'use' ;)
It uses the FSF definition as much as Debian uses the DFSG. > kk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list gNewSense-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
