Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third
Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-)
We can't solve the problem by denying it.
We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made
that explicit in many cases when we tal
[crossposting removed]
Subject changed to reflect the off topic nature of this discussion,
and to summarize the point being made in the previous message.
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:22:22 -0500
> From: Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
On 11/26/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term
> > is often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME
> > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors.
>
> We use the term interc
> I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have
> been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting
> together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's
>
> Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 11:22 -0500, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Many of the candidates have identified software patents as a major
> threat. Would GNOME like to help in the campaign against the new
> "IPR" enforcement directive in the EU? A prominent link to FFII's
> page about this would be pret
On Sa, 2005-11-26 at 11:21 -0500, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> I think it is clear that C# should not be the main or preferred
> language for GNOME, should not play a major or central role. Giving
> it such a role would be a very bad strategic move, since it would
> encourage a large community to
I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have
been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting
together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's
Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term
is ofte
Many of the candidates have identified software patents as a major
threat. Would GNOME like to help in the campaign against the new
"IPR" enforcement directive in the EU? A prominent link to FFII's
page about this would be pretty effective, and easy to do.
___
For GNOME to include C# support as an optional add-on cannot hurt. It
should work with Portable.NET, which is the GNU implementation of C#,
and whose design is more favorable to possible integration with GCC
than that of Mono is. However, it is fine to work with Mono as well.
I think it is clear
