On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle <
mduponchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
> don't speak for all of us.
I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
state their stance on it, I don'
>
> Generally I think that the people who are not on board understand what is
> being discussed and simply disagree with certain aspects of it. I know that
> is the case with me. I contribute to FOSS, etc, but I do not always share
> the same ethics as the FSF. My impression is that that is common.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Magdalen Berns
wrote:
>
>> Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not
> giving due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to
> what he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not
> seem all that
>
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
>> don't speak for all of us.
>
>
> I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
> state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined.
>
There are people who are in a position
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>
> The stigma related to bitcoin is just the media doing their thing to try and
> discredit it, in my humble view. A lot of people do not buy into that stuff.
> With that said, it is reasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable with
> something
On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
>
> Perhaps some might be seeing Richard as the FSF too quickly and not giving
> due regard what he is actually saying about this in the reactions to what
> he's putting forward. How he's defined "dodgy links" really does not seem all
> that u
On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Mathieu Duponchelle wrote:
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please don't
> speak for all of us.
However you define “many”, it doesn’t mean “all”, Mathieu, so don’t speak for —
or over — those of us who aren’t in line with Richard’s
>
> It’s frankly pretty difficult for me at least to distinguish between
> Richard-speaking-as-Richard-alone and Richard-speaking-as-the-FSF, and he
> never makes the distinction himself. Does he hold some viewpoint that the
> FSF does not, or vice versa? That would actually be news to me.
>
Perso
>
>
> Define "Many" ? I personally support FSF's ethics in principle, please
>> don't speak for all of us.
>
>
> I think it's somewhat split, but sort of having everyone in the foundation
> state their stance on it, I don't know how 'many' could be defined.
>
The elected members of the Board of Di
