Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49 +0200:
> Joerg Schilling wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700: >> >What is wrong with this? Commands like make have evolved considerably >> >since 1972. However, inside the GNU make info page you can read this: >> > >> > GNU `make' conforms to section 6.2 of `IEEE Standard 1003.2-1992' >> > (POSIX.2). >> Do you believe all false claims? > Alan believes that taking two separate and independent computer program > works (separate and independent under copyright law, according to the > AFC test) and combining them together in a compilation (see 17 USC 101) > creates a "derived work" (see the GNU Copyleft Act) akin to "embryo > which is derived from the egg and sperm." I gather that he also > believes that linking is akin to sex without condoms (and that it is > not oral or anal). HaHaHaHa! Is this really the best you can manage, Alex? (Clue to those who aren't yet familiar with Alexander Terekhov: He believes that combining two pieces of source code always produces a "compilation" and never a "derived work", regardless of how the combining is done.) > regards, > alexander. And the happiest of evenings to you too, sir! -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
