On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:12:15PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
> corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
> new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
> able to determine if the
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
Forward references should be avoided w
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:09:33PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:12:15PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
> corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
> new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
> able to determine if the
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
Forward references should be avoided w
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:09:33PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find
it a less powerful and m
I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find
it a less powerful and m
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Then, WTF, what do you gain by enumbering more interpretations that are
> grammatically possible, and then at once declaring that they are
> semantically and legally meaningless? I don't see any point in this. We
> still have exactly t
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Then, WTF, what do you gain by enumbering more interpretations that are
> grammatically possible, and then at once declaring that they are
> semantically and legally meaningless? I don't see any point in this. We
> still have exactly t
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying
>> to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to
>> interprent the "...will remain 100% F
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Raul Miller wrote:
> >> > * There are people in Debian.
> >> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> But it's essentially a different topic from the message Raul was replying
>> to, which was explaining that there are only two possible ways to
>> interprent the "...will remain 100% F
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:31:49AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Raul Miller wrote:
> >> > * There are people in Debian.
> >> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > * There are people in Debian.
> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
> distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > * There are people in Debian.
> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
> distribution". You could interpret it as meaning "the
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
>> >> amount of time on this in debia
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > * There are people in Debian.
> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
> distribution". You could interpre
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > * There are people in Debian.
>> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
>> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
>> dist
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:27:58AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point.
I beg to differ, but *shrug*
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
> >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possib
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:27:58AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I think my comment was actually appropriate and to-the-point.
I beg to differ, but *shrug*
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > * There are people in Debian.
>> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
>> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
>> dist
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
>> >> amount of time on this in debia
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> No, trust me, we parsed this one very carefully and took an excessive
> >> amount of time on this in debian-legal. There are two possib
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:21:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > * There are people in Debian.
> Fine, there are a bunch of silly interpretations as well. The context
> indicates that "Debian" means "the Debian system" or "the Debian
> distribution". You could interpre
Raul Miller wrote:
>> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
>> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> >> everything in Debian is free.
>
>> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> No
Raul Miller wrote:
>> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>
>> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> >> everything in Debian is free.
>
>> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> No
> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
> >> everything in Debian is free.
> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> No, trust me, we parsed this one ve
> >> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> >> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
> >> everything in Debian is free.
> > :%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> No, trust me, we parsed this one ve
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
>> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
>> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
>> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
>> You have a
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
>> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> everything in Debian is free.
>
> :%s/and furthermore
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
>> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
>> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
>> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
>> You have a
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
>> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The current statement is:
>>
>> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
>> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
>> everything in Debian is free.
>
> :%s/and furthermore
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
> You have a point. Andrew's version is
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]:
> > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
> > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
> > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
> You have a point. Andrew's version is
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
> > determine if they ca
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
> > on the whole d
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > New text:
> >
> > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> [...]
> > We encourage CD
> > manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
> > determine if they ca
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:25]:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> > change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
> > on the whole d
Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> New text:
>
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
[...]
> We encourage CD
> manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
> determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs.
^^
Th
Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> New text:
>
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
[...]
> We encourage CD
> manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
> determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs.
^^
Th
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The current statement is:
>
> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
> everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
--
Raul
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Ji,
>
> I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
> the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
(A
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
> on the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
I thi
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:44:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The current statement is:
>
> >> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> This states that everything in Debian is software, and futhermore that
> everything in Debian is free.
:%s/and furthermore/and\/or/
--
Raul
--
To UN
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Ji,
>
> I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
> the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
This is, in Andrew's proposal, basically an issue of wording.
(A
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:27 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ji, I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
> change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact
> on the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
I thi
Ji,
I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040323 19:10]:
> [ Andrews proposal ]
> Old text
Ji,
I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
* Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040323 19:10]:
> [ Andrews proposal ]
> Old text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Now that the disposition of the non-free sections has been
decided upon, it is time to move on to the editorial changes proposed
by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I mean to have the formal discussion period start this Sun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Now that the disposition of the non-free sections has been
decided upon, it is time to move on to the editorial changes proposed
by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I mean to have the formal discussion period start this Sun
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
> bothered to collect the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
> bothered to collect the
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
> bothered to collect the c
I second this as well.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > -8<-
> >
> > Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced wi
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for se
I second this as well:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > -8<-
> >
> > Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced wi
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:42:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
> bothered to collect the c
I second this as well.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > -8<-
> >
> > Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced wi
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And this brings up a good point. Andrew, why can you and Raul not be
bothered to collect the current versions of your proposals, and post
here a solicitation for se
I second this as well:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:37:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > -8<-
> >
> > Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced wi
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that
Seconded as amended.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> >
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> As amended:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the g
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> > proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> > of the social cont
Seconded as amended.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> >
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> As amended:
> -8<-
>
> Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
> following text:
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the g
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> > proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> > of the social cont
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nitpick: on-line, not online
dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Nitpick: on-line, not online
Hmm... according to Google, "online" is more than 20 times more common
than "on-line". Even ispell is happy with both (at least with the
iamerican spelling dictionary).
I don't think there's any good r
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Nitpick: on-line, not online
Hmm... according to Google, "online" is more than 20 times more common
than "on-line". Even ispell is happy with both (at least with the
iamerican spelling dictionary).
I don't think there's any good r
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
> --
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
> --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and t
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
>
>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 03:49:39PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
> proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
> of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
> original intent.
>
>
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
original intent.
-8<-
Par
Haven't had any further comments, so I guess we're good to go. This
proposal corrects various linguistic errors, and updates the language
of the social contract so that it better reflects reality and the
original intent.
-8<-
Par
88 matches
Mail list logo
