Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> David Diaz wrote:
> > 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
> 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 on
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 d
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 19:38 +0200, 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 pub
> > Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I find it funny that Debian's "vrms" lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg
> >> ("vrms" is the "Virtual RMS" which lists the non-free packages installed
> >> on your system). At least if they want to keep the "GFDL is not free"
> >> principle, they shoul
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:24 +0200, Davi Leal wrote:
> It is funny that Debian's "vrms" lists emacs21-common-non-dfsg
>
> "vrms" is the "Virtual RMS" which lists the
>non-free packages installed on your system.
>
> At least if Debian want to keep the "GFDL is not free" principle, Debian
> s
6 matches
Mail list logo
