On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> DESCRIPTION
>
> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
>    a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
>    stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified.
You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an 
actionable item here.  Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the 
correct process for this?
---------------------------------------
Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin 
bob's views.  If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their 
views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their 
views which gives *others* concern.  This point of objection needs to be 
resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.