I should have been more clear, I was trying to avoid being rude to ams.
It was a truncation of a longer response where I was saying that ams should not have kept out of politics.
I meant that the participation methods of FSF act as a selector of participants thus rendering ams conclusion meaningless, and supporting you.
Sorry not to have been clear enough.
Regards,
Sam
-----Original Message----- From: "MJ Ray" mjr@phonecoop.coop To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Sent: 26/09/06 17:57 Subject: Re: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
- Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 26/09/06 13:34:
You say that simply because you cannot use it how _you_ want, the whole system must be junked, you could simply install a webbrowser and use the system, or a PDF viewer, all of this is free software and not very hard to do.
Firstly, I have a couple of web browsers installed, including Firefox, but they do not work with the system.
Secondly, web browsers are too large to download over GSM, I don't even have a telephone landline at the moment (thanks BT) and I can't see how to download stuff to removable media on the public library computers.
I say it should be junked simply because it makes various undocumented particular software demands, instead of using widely-available accessible tools.
PDF viewers and web browsers are the most basic tools these days.
PDF viewers are more basic than text editors, eh?
Maybe if you paid the people who made the whole GPLv3 commenting infrastructure you might get what you want, but until then, they are going to work on something the majority of people can use easily, and they have done a wonderful job achiving that IMHO.
If FSF needs help or funding to get a working comment system, they should ask for it in good time. I'd chip in and I'm sure many others would too, but I would not pay the people who made the current inaccessible system.
I also believe that most of those who have been able to participate have been satisfied with the participation tools.
That's not really surprising, is it?
Thanks,
I should have been more clear, I was trying to avoid being rude to ams.
I fail to see where you were rude to me in anyway.
It was a truncation of a longer response where I was saying that ams should not have kept out of politics.
I meant that the participation methods of FSF act as a selector of participants thus rendering ams conclusion meaningless, and supporting you.
Sorry not to have been clear enough.
I wasn't confused before, but now I am, I don't understand the two above sentences at all.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 26/09/06 22:41:
I should have been more clear, I was trying to avoid being rude to ams.
I fail to see where you were rude to me in anyway.
It was a truncation of a longer response where I was saying that ams should not have kept out of politics.
I meant that the participation methods of FSF act as a selector of participants thus rendering ams conclusion meaningless, and supporting you.
Sorry not to have been clear enough.
I wasn't confused before, but now I am, I don't understand the two above sentences at all.
So now to clear things up, I say what I intended not to say. (Reply accidentally sent seperately in response to original message)
Sam