[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GUILE FAQ
From: |
thi |
Subject: |
Re: GUILE FAQ |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:53:30 -0800 |
From: Martin Grabmueller <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:10:16 +0100
Hmm, okay, then I think the pages at gnu.org are out. Most sites
where people are having their private stuff are related to non-free
content somehow.
OT: When this policy is strictly enforced, what about projects under
www.gnu.org/software which have their main pages at sites like
SourceForge? Would they have to move?
i suppose this is something we can only expect people to self-enforce
(each http://www.gnu.org/software/foo page is maintained separately). i
can't speak for the other webpage maintainers, but it seems like in
practice there has to be some tolerance to non-free links, since, for
example, references to glug.org (and i'm sure sourceforge) appear
variously in the mailing list archives.
anyway, i think the policy does not apply to mailing lists for both
practical and political reasons. i'm going to remove the gnu->glug link
and be done w/ it (for now :-). as it is, the glug.org page has many
more referrals from google than from gnu...
What would be the status of documentation released under a
appropriately free license, such as the GNU documentation license?
Would it be possible to put such stuff at gnu.org, so that the
link-problem is solved?
yes i think this would be fine.
thi
- Re: GUILE FAQ, (continued)
- Re: GUILE FAQ, thi, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, Peter C. Norton, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, thi, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, Bill Gribble, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, thi, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, Chris Cramer, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, thi, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/01/23
- Re: GUILE FAQ,
thi <=
- Re: GUILE FAQ, pax!, 2001/01/23
Re: GUILE FAQ, Matthew R Wette, 2001/01/22