Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

2000-07-14 Thread David Starner
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 10:17:34PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 09:09:05PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > > It seems to me, though, not inappropriate to apply it to arguments > > against excluding libc5 from future releases but saying that > > apps that need it won't be able t

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

2000-07-14 Thread David Starner
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 09:09:05PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: > It seems to me, though, not inappropriate to apply it to arguments > against excluding libc5 from future releases but saying that > apps that need it won't be able to get it. I've already show that if I want to use David Parson's utili

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

2000-07-14 Thread Bolan Meek
Stephen Frost wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, David Starner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 10:04:18PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > >...FUD tactics are nothing new and are common throughout history. > > > > What are FUD tactics? Are secret police a FUD tactic? If so, then > > I doesn't u

Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-freearchive removal)

2000-07-14 Thread Michael Bramer
On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:49:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > +5. Issue and modify nontechnical policy documents and statements. > + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > +