Under his logic, that someone else would even be allowed to claim
that you wrote the program shooting Shia Muslims.
Please stop pretending you know what my logic is. You have
repatedly resorted to insults, and now you try to put words into my
mouth.
Exactly, that's absurd. And if it
Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens
(similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.
Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're
perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting
at aliens, you're now shooting
I think you are trying to put documentation and programs into one
box.
No, I'm telling that you cannot put programs and documentation
shipped electronical in different boxes.
If they are different, then they should be in different boxes. Maybe
you are speaking about physical
I'm sorry to contradict you, but this is completely wrong:
There is no law in the world that will protect you from slander if you
explicitly allow for the right to modify a work. You cannot sue a
person for using a free software program in a manner that you consider
bad since you explicitly
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't yet
exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is infact
protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The former is not.
Yet another unfounded claim. Can you back it up with some
You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't
yet exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is
infact protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The
former is not.
Yet another unfounded claim. Can you back it up with some arguments
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060215 20:41]:
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they are
clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they
are clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they are directed. Comments are
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate
the digits of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
I think this is getting boring, although some interesting point have
been made in the past days. Actually, you agreed
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't static. You'd have a
point[0] if you dumped the listing of prime
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 22:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't
What about starting looking beyond these defects and go to the
substance ?
If the defect is so grave as in this case, it is hard to look at the
substance.
So what do you call a spreadsheet with macros ? Is it a document?
Is it a program ?
It is a spreadsheet. Is a poem a document?
12 matches
Mail list logo
