Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Permalink for comment 399816
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"I should've made it clear in the teaser that I wanted to talk about RMS and the FSF...


Why would it need to be about RMS and the FSF? The discussion was squarely about Gnome's place as a FSF project, despite the avenue that you chose to go down.
"

Regardless if the topic was actually about GNOME and its alignment (or lack thereof) with the aims of the FSF's project (GNU) of which GNOME is supposed to be a part ... Thom really wanted wanted to rant and whine about Stallman and the FSF.

I thought he made that clear?

OSNews participants are all such nasty people for talking about something other than what Thom wanted.

Where are the [sacrcasm] tags when you need them?[/sarcasm]

PS: for anyone unclear about what the aims of GNU are supposed to be, here they are in all their long-established finery:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

"How GNU Will Be Available
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free."


Edited 2009-12-16 05:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3