On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, vincent rioux wrote:
we probably should not go that far into details,
which details are superfluous?
Those which had already been covered in previous posts.
I posted about PiDiP on pd-list as I realized that most people didn't even know of PiDiP's license problems because it only had been discussed on pd-dev and pd-ot. It might all be superfluous to your inbox, but there are many other people reading pd-list.
I tried my best to summarize the issues. If you have anything to precise or add or correct then go ahead.
and certainly not declare open wars. please, please, take it a little bit more easy.
How is "taking it easy" going to get anything solved?
How do you use negotiation in a situation where there is no trade-off to do?... It's not like there was any violation of my rights. It's all about raising awareness about free software issues and that there is a license violation. The only thing I advocate is for PiDiP to be back to being free software, without any ambiguities.
What's your agenda in wanting me to stay quiet about the facts?
Left wing conspiracy!
Don't even begin to insinuate that I might be some kind of right wing...
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada