* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 07:57:00PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: > > I'm getting some pushback from upstream on this actually and on second > > thought I'm leery to fuddle with someones copyright assertion, as > > innocuous as it may be. I'm going to wait for upstream to make a > > call. > > I find it deeply amusing that a supposedly free software project cites > a list of proprietary software examples (for which all rights *are* > reserved) when trying to justify what their license text says.
I'm glad you're amused. I find it very frustrating. > I find it even more amusing that they're willing to expend pages and > pages of discourse for what is little more than a documentation > inconsistency that could be fixed by copying a couple of lines from > the about: text to the dialog text. In fact, I cannot imagine any > compelling reason why these two things should not be identical - it's > not like the about: text wouldn't fit. Hopefully I can convince them. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
