[marketing] Re: [extensions-dev] Re: [marketing] FSF push for a Free Extension list -- CC don't react

Ok I will participate with the website ML, and I understand about the FSF level of requriement is not acceptable. However I will suggest to take some steps to get the upper hand by recomending this changes: - Name the category as Free -- not by license--. Free implies that we are providing a

Re: [marketing] FSF push for a Free Extension list -- CC don't react

Hi Alexandro, Alexandro Colorado wrote: FSF launched a statement about pushing free-only listing for OOo extensions. They approach the community counsil and was rejected according to a post on LWN.net. I want to express my support for FSF since is a reasonable petition and also trivially done

Re: [marketing] FSF push for a Free Extension list -- CC don't react

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Stefan Taxhet (sonews) stefan.tax...@sun.com wrote: Hi Alexandro, Alexandro Colorado wrote: FSF launched a statement about pushing free-only listing for OOo extensions. They approach the community counsil and was rejected according to a post on LWN.net. I

Re: [marketing] FSF push for a Free Extension list -- CC don't react

Hi Stefan, Le 09.05.2010 22:09, Stefan Taxhet (sonews) a écrit : [...] The request was to delete non-free extensions or to run separate repositories or to use fully separated partitions without crosslinks. The link By License is in place now. But as said it does not satisfy the FSF's need.

[marketing] FSF push for a Free Extension list -- CC don't react

FSF launched a statement about pushing free-only listing for OOo extensions. They approach the community counsil and was rejected according to a post on LWN.net. I want to express my support for FSF since is a reasonable petition and also trivially done in drupal by using categories.