| |||||||||||||
GFDL does not...GFDL does not...Posted Mar 10, 2005 8:21 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)In reply to: GFDL does not... by giraffedata Parent article: A day in the life of emacs You wrote: ``the fact that RMS isn't willing to contribute even more to the cooperation doesn't mean Xemacs is any less at fault for the lack of cooperation.'' (emphasis by me). This was the reaction to the point of dvdeug who wrote ``I tend to look askance on any claim that all failures to cooperate in the past have been XEmacs's fault.'' With your statement, you made a contradiction to his scepsis and thus supported the concept that the chism is XEmacs's fault. ``any less at fault'' as an answer to ``all failures ... have been XEmacs's fault'' is quite clearly a position, isn't it? And I reacted exactly to that position. Joachim
(Log in to post comments)
GFDL does not... Posted Mar 10, 2005 21:23 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] "not any less at fault" is fundamentally different from "completely at fault" or even "somewhat at fault." In fact, I have reserved judgment on who, if anyone is at fault and how much.dvdeug said something else besides that he looks askance at this claim by RMS; he gave the reason -- that RMS is today doing the same thing he accuses Xemacs of doing in the past. All I said is that the reason is wrong -- RMS's refusal to give the documentation license doesn't absolve Xemacs of any fault it might have. dvdeug then added some different reasons to point the finger away from Xemacs and at RMS.
|
|||||||||||||