On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want. > I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept? > Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it, how does it make sense as a "compromise"? > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quote the parts you think I skipped over too hastily, please; I, uh, did. > But there is more than licenses at issue here. > There are also required advertising sentencies, no-warraty > ascriptions, lists of contributors, "you must tell people that they > can get the original version of this package at URL foo", etc. None of those are at issue, as far as I've seen. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue." -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
pgpmhUG4fzcIe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
