On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Nope. I'm just tired of giving proof after proof that you're wrong and having
you restate the same tripe.
> > PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting
Certainly. I never said otherwise. What I stated and then *implied* was that
you are repeating the same false logic over and over again trying to make
people believe that it isn't borked and that that false logic is exactly the
same crap I've seen from the FSF numerous times.
> I haven't consulted other FSFLA members about this. This is all my
Where I am examining the facts and drawing a logical conclusion. That it
happens to form an opinion is secondary to the truth.
> It just so happens that I'm very closely involved in the process, I've
Okay. Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't attempt
to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does.
> And then, I influence the process myself, so it's not like some of the
This is no surprise - I had a feeling this was the truth. Not that it changes
my opinion at all. As I've said, I have never liked the GPL at all, but v2 is
the best that exists - even though I've put together custom licenses myself,
none of them have had the number of lawyers look at them that the GPLv2 has
had.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interfaceforon access scanning |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" |
git: | |
