portuguese resolution on free software
Ruben Leote Mendes
ruben at nocturno.org
Sun Oct 3 03:10:34 UTC 2004
Hello Graham,
As a native portuguese speaker your translation looks excellent to me!
I would also like to add that in the same parliamentary discussion
another proposal from the same party, which proposed that Portugal
reverse it's (favorable) position about software patents, was refused.
The transcription of the full debate is available (in portuguese) in PDF:
http://www3.parlamento.pt/dari/DARIDoc.aspx?Doc=aHR0cDovL0lOVFJBU1JWL2FybmV0L0RvY3VtZW50cy9EUkFBL0RpJUMzJUExcmlvcyUyMGRhJTIwQXNzZW1ibGVpYSUyMGRhJTIwUmVwJUMzJUJBYmxpY2EvRGklQzMlQTFyaW9zJTIwSSUyMFMlQzMlQTlyaWUvSVglMjBMZWdpc2xhdHVyYS8zLiVDMiVBQSUyMFNlc3MlQzMlQTNvJTIwTGVnaXNsYXRpdmEvREFSSTAwNS5wZGY%3d&Nome=DARI005.pdf
Regards,
Rúben
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:10:12PM +0100, Graham Seaman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Portuguese parliament (Assembleia da Republica) recently passed an
> advisory motion on free software (proposed by the Communist Party, but
> with cross party support). You can find the original at
> http://www.pcp.pt/ar/legis-9/projres/pjr255.htm. There is
> some (portuguese language) discussion of the resolution, together with
> the text of supporting speeches by other deputies in the ANSOL free
> software list
> http://listas.ansol.org/pipermai/ansol-geral/2004-September/
>
> I haven't seen anything about this in any language other than
> Portuguese, so I thought I would translate it.
> The translation below is completely unofficial; I hope it's of some
> interest for the list, but you might want to get it verified by a native
> Portuguese speaker before using it for anything..
>
> Best
> Graham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Rúben Leote Mendes - ruben at nocturno.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20041003/67044a20/attachment.sig>
More information about the Discussion
mailing list