They are explaining to you that in the post you replied to, the part prefixed “>” was a quote from the article and your original post reads as if you thought th

They are explaining to you that in the post you replied to, the part prefixed “>” was a quote from the article and your original post reads as if you thought that part was an expression of the comment authors opinion. The only part of the post you replied to that was not from the article was: > As far as I can tell, the L in "FLOSS" is typically "libre," not "Liberal." I feel like the author is vastly and misleadingly inflating his relevance in this post.