On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 16:02 -0400, Robert Love wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 20:53 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > > No. Under an OSI approved license or any other. > > Is that the crux of your rant? For your absolute information: NO. Not by a long shot. I only chose to use what supposedly is the most current wording of that phrase. > That the agreement was changed from DFSG to OSI? (The copy I Googled for > said DFSG, but I will take your word that some newer official copy says > OSI). No. Take Jeff Waugh's word, not mine. > Instead of all of this insane flaming, I suggest: "I disagree with the > use of OSI licenses. I prefer DFSG licenses." > > That is really all that needed to be said. That isn't true. > And, in response, I could of said who cares! And, How is this even an > issue? I am done with this thread. That isn't the issue. It is dishonest that you even try to bring it up. You'intentionally trying to create an artificial division. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part