Em 24-02-2010 10:16, Dave Neary escreveu:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing
>> technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical
>> capability or culture.
>>
>> Freedom can lead to more available technology, but i
Em 14-12-2009 00:26, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:34 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:
Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's
making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his ow
Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:
Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's
making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his own ideology of free
choice.
Choice of the master is not free choice for a slave. It only looks like
"free choice" to other mas
Em 12-12-2009 11:31, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 09:51 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I have a personal blog and when I asked planet.openmoko.org to add my
posts, I gave them the RSS feed corresponding to posts under the tag
OpenMoko.
Perhaps it would be a simpler
Em 11-12-2009 18:20, Brian Cameron escreveu:
If there is enough people to do a vote, that's great.
My vote: -1
I do not think that people should be discouraged from suggesting rules
for the GNOME community, and a reaction like leaving the GNU community
because Richard made a suggestion could b
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 04:10:39AM +, Bruno Pinho wrote:
> This tutorial about GTK+ is 100% translated to portuguese. What do you think?
> Can I offer it to my friends so they can study?
> thanks,
Hi Bruno,
It seems to be a Standard Portuguese translation, am I right? I just skimmed
the first
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 04:43:04PM +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 17:24 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> I agree 100% here, just because we're supposed to have an ideology of
> free software doesn't mean we should be against using non-free software.
> Hell, dreamweaver is an awes
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:41:24AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent
> > "support" of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software.
>
> Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there, and we
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:40:47AM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:25:30AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > If you (or anyone else) is interested talk to the board. That
&
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:15:34AM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> > great concern.
>
>
> Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's
> option
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:22:23PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great
> > concern.
>
> Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their
> indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:03:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
(...)
> However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a
> grave mistake. If the article accurately describes the situation, I
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:15:11AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:37:27PM -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this
> > > instance. It can not force develop
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > One question to candidates:
> >
> > Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the revie
Hello,
One question to candidates:
Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing
of ODF?
I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more
important to the Free Software world to have a true Open Standard for
office documents, regardless
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO.
>
> So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them?
No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who
has not changed its methods, as if it w
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:49:34AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
> > OOXML?
>
> I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political grounds
> because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. T
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:16:48AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe
> > here would be better for us in the short term
>
> Thing is, Microsoft haven't spun it to their advantage. They've mentioned
> that Gnumeric is implemen
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 06:37:49PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> this announcement be shooting our own feet again? It feels like the only
> argument behind it that it is not the outcome wanted by Rui.
I would prefer an outcome that could better defend GNOME against the
abuse Microsofties are doing
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 07:26:12AM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Funny then, that even after nothing being done by GNOME on TC45 since
> > July (previous to OOXML vote on Septembe
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional
> > support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at
Hi,
Funny then, that even after nothing being done by GNOME on TC45 since
July (previous to OOXML vote on September 2) ECMA is still claiming
GNOME participates in the disposition of comments:
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/First%20group%20of%20662%20proposed%20dispositi
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:37:07AM -0600, George Kraft wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:45 -0600, George Kraft wrote:
> > >
> > > Affl: none
> > > Bio: http://live.gnome.org/GeorgeKraft
> >
> > Hi George,
> >
> > Great to see you ru
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 06:35:50PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> what you value about GNOME. To put it in a clunky but simple way, if "GNOME
> is People", vote for the people who "are GNOME".
Dear god... I didn't know GNOME was made of old people who had assisted
death in order to make canned food! Q
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:19:23AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of
> > the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is
> > not of that manner.
>
> I have a significant problem with the ethics of th
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much
> > more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely).
>
> Spoken like a non-spreadsheet user. My experience suggests exactly
> the opposite. Users are a lo
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
> To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
> tomorrow.
I'm not so sure...
http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aodt => almost 100.000 hit
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wro
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:14:11PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as
> > well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spen
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> >
> > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> > political party you
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interac
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
>with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
>questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted.
Microsoft has done it's ver
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:46:47PM -0400, Corey Burger wrote:
> Wait a sec. The simple matter is that we are getting hammered for
> something that isn't even true. How is the board fixing that?
Apparently, it *is* true, but a PR as proposed didn't end up being
published.
It's a pity because unint
There wasn't any name calling. Just statement of facts.
That they aren't favourable... well, saying someone is parroting obvious
talking points is far from calling anyone a fanatic, but maybe that's
just me.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:10:32PM +0200, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
tool, as the current badmouthing do not entice me
> at least, to get stronger GNOME endorsement ODF.
>
> Christian
>
> On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:34 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:37:06PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:37:06PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > > Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
> > > > auto-space ?
> > >
> > > Can you tell me how ODF lays out paragraphs or does line-breaking or
> > > wraps text to shaped embedded
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 20:22 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
> > auto-space ?
>
> Can you tell me how ODF lays out pa
Hi,
It is my non-lawyer point of view that the Microsoft OSP is absolutely
irrelevant and that in the soon to be EU law may actually be a complete
red herring, since it may soon be the case that you don't have to be the
owner of patents to make the authorites do the enforcement.
Also, why do you
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:44:40AM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that the above url is far from being truthful. You do
> > > not have to go too far to find problems with it, starting with the
> > > discussion that we were having on this forum regarding the Microsoft OSP
> >
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:37:09AM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> > I would not go as far as saying
> > that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us advance our own FLOSS
> > agenda.
> >
> > Why not? Surely there is nothing wrong with telling the truth to
> > support the free
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Fully irrelevant, since in one case it's mere workload, and in the other
> > case it's double the workload + restricted information + mathmatical and
> > date errors.
>
> We need to implement support for the date issue if we want
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:09:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of
> Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement,
>
> Yes. The spec has 6000 pages, and that isn't even the complete spec,
> si
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:47:23PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of
> > Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement,
> > or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats.
>
>
Hi Michael,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> AFAICS - Standards may be open or closed, but Free software will
> eventually support them all.
I think this is naïve since even though they may be eventually
supported, they might not be used at all in business du
Sáb, 2006-11-25 às 22:51 +, Joachim Noreiko escreveu:
> Freedoms that you can't exercise are meaningless.
This doesn't stand to reality:
I'm not a journalist, yet freedom of press is not meaningless!
Freedom for you to study and adapt the code doesn't mean you have to do
it your self,
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 20:22 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> I'm a bit sad that only 169 members (out of more than 350) voted,
> though. If anyone has some ideas on why less than 50% of the members
> voted or on how to change this, please share them. I'd really love to
> see this figure at 80% in the f
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 09:37 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> Luckily, I don't believe any of the candidates share your ridiculous
> extremist self-belief.
"How badly dressed you are..." says the naked to the undressed.
Your posts reflect an "anti"-ness that's borderline "religious".
Rui
signatur
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:02 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> Many of our _users_ need for those systems to work well with free
> software. Yes, they need free-software alternatives even more, but we
> don't need to kick them repeatedly in the balls while they are trying to
> make the transition. GNOM
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:42 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party
> developers or independant software developers, I think people have
> missed the important point.
>
> That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant
> software V
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 14:55 +, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > >We can't solve the problem by denying it.
>
> No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are
> distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear
> information and heading off patent threats).
Actually, t
51 matches
Mail list logo
