Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Lorenzo Malaguti")
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:45:40 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and
>> > your code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
>>
>> As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to the
>> GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you say
>> when it links dynamically it is separate?
>
> Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into your
> binary where statically linking does.
The greater work includes both files. The GPL code is trivially included in
the greater work.
> This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
> statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is dynamically
> linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That is the key.
That's just storage.
>> > (3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must
>> > make it GPL.
>>
>> Linking to a GPLd library creates the greater work. The GPLd code is
>> incorporated into that greater work.
>>
>> > In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
>> > "reasonably considered independent."
>>
>> Circular definition. I asked you why do you consider dynamically linked
>> code to be reasonably independent. You are just stating the question as
>> an answer.
>
> Static and dynamic linking are fundamentally different processes. It isn't
> just storage.
In-memory, they are similar. The way the code is stored when not in use is
not mentioned in the GPL as relevant, and it is not mentioned in the law,
either. This is your personal opinion, not what the license says. Are you
willing to be sued on that opinion?
>> > If you statically link code into your program, then your program
>> > contains GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your
>> > program does not contain GPL code.
>>
>> The program at runtime makes no distinction between statically and
>> dynamically linked code. Why should the way it's stored on disk define
>> whether they are part of a greater work or not? The GPL doesn't say that
>> the way they are stored is meaningful as a litmus test. Neither does the
>> law.
>
> The GPL does say this, it lays out a framework in which GPL can be used by
> non-GPL code. The "litmus test" is that the works can be "reasonably
> considered independent." A shared library can be built completely
> independent of your non-GPL code. A static link incorporates the GPL code
> into your code, thus eliminating a reasonable definition of "independent."
But the program that uses the functionality of the GPLd library is not,
then, because it fails this test you propose. So, if a program uses one
iota of code from a library licensed under the GPL, the program can not be
considered independent, regardless of dynamic or static linking. You are
making RMS's case.
> You are even allowed to ship the GPL code with your application and not be
> required to make yours GPL.
Simple aggregation is not the same thing as dynamic linking, and viceversa.
> I guess I understand why there is confusion. It is perfectly obvious to
> me, being a software developer, that dynamic linking avoids the GPL. I can
> create a program which contains NO GPL code, ships with NO GPL code, and
> yet can use GPL code installed on a users system when it gets there.
This is where RMS disagrees with you. The greater work includes the program
AND the library. Once you accept that, it's obvious. And to make you accept
that, is why the GPL speaks of "greater work" and not "derived work".
Read the GPL again.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:01:57 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> > This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL
> >> > code,
> >>
> >> <RMS>
> >> Code linked to a library and using the functionality of that library is
> >> not separate code.
> >> </RMS>
> >
> > He is talking about static linking. I differ a bit with him on this, but
> > accept this restriction. Dynamic linking, using a .dll or .so is fine.
>
> He is not talking about statically linked code. Just ask him.
>
> <RMS>
> Static or dynamic linking makes no difference regarding the GPL.
> Even if the user himself does the linking, it is still the same regarding
> ther GPL.
> </RMS>
I have never seen him say this. Have a URL? It seems counter to the meaning of
the GPL. To be honest, I see a lot of "quotes" from RMS that I would like to
see in a full context from an authoritative source. I'm not saying anyone is
lying, I am just skeptical about the origin of these quotes, many sound like
urban legends.
>
> Again, it's your opinion and his opinion. If you have any support for your
> opinion on the law or the license, feel free to share.
The two sentences in section 2 of the GPL seems perfectly explicit to me:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute
them as separate works."
As well as this sentence:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with
the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License."
Conclusion:
If I distribute a set of GPL libraries to which my application is dynamically
linked, distribute the source to these GPL libraries, along with any
modifications I may have made to them, with my application, which is in binary
form and does not contain any code from these libraries, I can clearly declare
it a separate and non derived work.
What information am I missing that would make this conclusion inaccurate?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:01:48 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> > This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL
>> >> > code,
>> >>
>> >> <RMS>
>> >> Code linked to a library and using the functionality of that library
>> >> is not separate code.
>> >> </RMS>
>> >
>> > He is talking about static linking. I differ a bit with him on this,
>> > but accept this restriction. Dynamic linking, using a .dll or .so is
>> > fine.
>>
>> He is not talking about statically linked code. Just ask him.
>>
>> <RMS>
>> Static or dynamic linking makes no difference regarding the GPL.
>> Even if the user himself does the linking, it is still the same regarding
>> ther GPL.
>> </RMS>
>
> I have never seen him say this. Have a URL?
Dozens, but this one should do:
"The key to answering this is to realize that there is no legal
distinction between dynamic linking and static linking."
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-misc-discuss/1998-May/013912.html
See what I meant when I told you you missed lots of GPL argument?
> It seems counter to the
> meaning of the GPL. To be honest, I see a lot of "quotes" from RMS that I
> would like to see in a full context from an authoritative source.
Happy to provide.
> I'm not saying anyone is lying, I am just skeptical about the origin of
> these quotes, many sound like urban legends.
Well, check it out. You obviously are new to the GPl debate.
>> Again, it's your opinion and his opinion. If you have any support for
>> your opinion on the law or the license, feel free to share.
>
> The two sentences in section 2 of the GPL seems perfectly explicit to me:
In that case, you should agree with me about the GPL being poorly written,
since the author's intent was clearly different, according to the reference
given above.
> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works."
>
> As well as this sentence:
>
> "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
> scope of this License."
>
>
> Conclusion:
>
> If I distribute a set of GPL libraries to which my application is
> dynamically linked, distribute the source to these GPL libraries, along
> with any modifications I may have made to them, with my application, which
> is in binary form and does not contain any code from these libraries, I
> can clearly declare it a separate and non derived work.
>
> What information am I missing that would make this conclusion inaccurate?
The same I provided you half a dozen times already.
According to the author of the license, applications that use functionality
from a GPLd library are not reasonably independent from that library.
Applications that link (dynamically or statically) to a library are not
simply aggregated to that library.
Are you dense, or are you not reading? If you disagree, o so, but stop
asking the same thing, quoting the same paragraph over and over as if I
never answered.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:55:18 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
>>with the price, only with the continued availability of the
>>source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
>>if these are distributed.
>
> Meaningless. Since there's nothing preventing someone from buying a copy and
> turning around and giving it away for free, the market is effectively
> destroyed.
Cheapbytes hasn't "destroyed" the expensive Linux distributions.
And yes, you won't make money on _every_ copy. That's something
Microsoft experiences as well.
On the whole, if I spend a lot of money acquiring something,
I'm not going to cut in my own flesh by giving away copies to
all and sundry just to spite the guy I bought it from.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:13:10 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and
> >> > your code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
> >>
> >> As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to the
> >> GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you say
> >> when it links dynamically it is separate?
> >
> > Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into your
> > binary where statically linking does.
>
> The greater work includes both files. The GPL code is trivially included in
> the greater work.
No it isn't.
>
> > This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
> > statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is dynamically
> > linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That is the key.
>
> That's just storage.
I disagree.
>
> >> > (3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you must
> >> > make it GPL.
> >>
> >> Linking to a GPLd library creates the greater work. The GPLd code is
> >> incorporated into that greater work.
> >>
> >> > In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
> >> > "reasonably considered independent."
> >>
> >> Circular definition. I asked you why do you consider dynamically linked
> >> code to be reasonably independent. You are just stating the question as
> >> an answer.
> >
> > Static and dynamic linking are fundamentally different processes. It isn't
> > just storage.
>
> In-memory, they are similar. The way the code is stored when not in use is
> not mentioned in the GPL as relevant, and it is not mentioned in the law,
> either. This is your personal opinion, not what the license says. Are you
> willing to be sued on that opinion?
I don't see any interpretation that can make your point. Are you saying that
Applix running in memory with GPL code makes Applix GPL? If I call a GPL code
module from Applix, does that mean Applix must become GPL?
>
> >> > If you statically link code into your program, then your program
> >> > contains GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your
> >> > program does not contain GPL code.
> >>
> >> The program at runtime makes no distinction between statically and
> >> dynamically linked code. Why should the way it's stored on disk define
> >> whether they are part of a greater work or not? The GPL doesn't say that
> >> the way they are stored is meaningful as a litmus test. Neither does the
> >> law.
> >
> > The GPL does say this, it lays out a framework in which GPL can be used by
> > non-GPL code. The "litmus test" is that the works can be "reasonably
> > considered independent." A shared library can be built completely
> > independent of your non-GPL code. A static link incorporates the GPL code
> > into your code, thus eliminating a reasonable definition of "independent."
>
> But the program that uses the functionality of the GPLd library is not,
> then, because it fails this test you propose. So, if a program uses one
> iota of code from a library licensed under the GPL, the program can not be
> considered independent, regardless of dynamic or static linking. You are
> making RMS's case.
The meaning of "independent" is interesting here. Nothing is truly independent.
It is impossible to be fully independent of anything. There are reasonable
limits to what independent can come to mean. By your definition the firmware in
a hard disk must also be GPL because GPL code calls it or causes it to be
executed. That's absurd.
>
> > You are even allowed to ship the GPL code with your application and not be
> > required to make yours GPL.
>
> Simple aggregation is not the same thing as dynamic linking, and viceversa.
>
> > I guess I understand why there is confusion. It is perfectly obvious to
> > me, being a software developer, that dynamic linking avoids the GPL. I can
> > create a program which contains NO GPL code, ships with NO GPL code, and
> > yet can use GPL code installed on a users system when it gets there.
>
> This is where RMS disagrees with you. The greater work includes the program
> AND the library. Once you accept that, it's obvious. And to make you accept
> that, is why the GPL speaks of "greater work" and not "derived work".
I do not agree with your interpretation here, and I see no supporting evidence
in the GPL.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Lorenzo Malaguti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:10:57 +0100
> Linux meanwhile has gained great momentum, and is being supported by IBM
and
> others as a prelude for greater growth in the future in all segments of
the
> market.
not to say that on IBM website there's a visible message
"For professional use IBM suggest W2K"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:22:42 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> > Conclusion:
> >
> > If I distribute a set of GPL libraries to which my application is
> > dynamically linked, distribute the source to these GPL libraries, along
> > with any modifications I may have made to them, with my application, which
> > is in binary form and does not contain any code from these libraries, I
> > can clearly declare it a separate and non derived work.
> >
> > What information am I missing that would make this conclusion inaccurate?
>
> The same I provided you half a dozen times already.
>
> According to the author of the license, applications that use functionality
> from a GPLd library are not reasonably independent from that library.
> Applications that link (dynamically or statically) to a library are not
> simply aggregated to that library.
And I have said many times, the author is not authoritative when it comes to
contract law. The GPL is a contract. There are many court cases where the
"intent" as testified by an author are rejected because the agreed contract,
being binding, override the author.
A contract is a lasting entity. The opinions and objectives of an author can
change. The GPL is 10 years old. There is no court which would entertain legal
action that wasn't in a clear legal violation of a 10 year old establish
"standard" contract, regardless of the author's current "intent."
>
> Are you dense, or are you not reading? If you disagree, o so, but stop
> asking the same thing, quoting the same paragraph over and over as if I
> never answered.
Maybe I am dense, but I am reading. I have been over the GPL for a long time
now, and in reading it, I don't see your points as being products of the GPL.
Perhaps they are the hear-say of RMS, but his words are not legally binding.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:20:04 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and
>> >> > your code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
>> >>
>> >> As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to
>> >> the GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do
>> >> you say when it links dynamically it is separate?
>> >
>> > Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into your
>> > binary where statically linking does.
>>
>> The greater work includes both files. The GPL code is trivially included
>> in the greater work.
>
> No it isn't.
Why? Because you say so? ;-)
Please provide a little more support for your position.
What part of it do you disagree with? The part of the library and the app
being a greater work? See the definition of greater work in the GPL.
>> > This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
>> > statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is dynamically
>> > linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That is the key.
>>
>> That's just storage.
>
> I disagree.
Why?
>> >> > (3) Indicates that if you incorporate GPL code INTO your work, you
>> >> > must make it GPL.
>> >>
>> >> Linking to a GPLd library creates the greater work. The GPLd code is
>> >> incorporated into that greater work.
>> >>
>> >> > In the simplest terms, if you dynamically link to GPL code it can be
>> >> > "reasonably considered independent."
>> >>
>> >> Circular definition. I asked you why do you consider dynamically
>> >> linked code to be reasonably independent. You are just stating the
>> >> question as an answer.
>> >
>> > Static and dynamic linking are fundamentally different processes. It
>> > isn't just storage.
>>
>> In-memory, they are similar. The way the code is stored when not in use
>> is not mentioned in the GPL as relevant, and it is not mentioned in the
>> law, either. This is your personal opinion, not what the license says.
>> Are you willing to be sued on that opinion?
>
> I don't see any interpretation that can make your point. Are you saying
> that
> Applix running in memory with GPL code makes Applix GPL? If I call a GPL
> code module from Applix, does that mean Applix must become GPL?
In fact, in RMS's plugin position paper (reference already provided), he
says that module is illegal. You can't license a plugin for a non-GPLd app
under the GPL, for this very reason.
See http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-misc-discuss/1998-May/013912.html
>> >> > If you statically link code into your program, then your program
>> >> > contains GPL code. If you dynamically link to GPL code then your
>> >> > program does not contain GPL code.
>> >>
>> >> The program at runtime makes no distinction between statically and
>> >> dynamically linked code. Why should the way it's stored on disk define
>> >> whether they are part of a greater work or not? The GPL doesn't say
>> >> that the way they are stored is meaningful as a litmus test. Neither
>> >> does the law.
>> >
>> > The GPL does say this, it lays out a framework in which GPL can be used
>> > by non-GPL code. The "litmus test" is that the works can be "reasonably
>> > considered independent." A shared library can be built completely
>> > independent of your non-GPL code. A static link incorporates the GPL
>> > code into your code, thus eliminating a reasonable definition of
>> > "independent."
>>
>> But the program that uses the functionality of the GPLd library is not,
>> then, because it fails this test you propose. So, if a program uses one
>> iota of code from a library licensed under the GPL, the program can not
>> be considered independent, regardless of dynamic or static linking. You
>> are making RMS's case.
>
> The meaning of "independent" is interesting here. Nothing is truly
> independent. It is impossible to be fully independent of anything. There
> are reasonable limits to what independent can come to mean.
RMS draws the boundary at "runs in the same address space", or at least
used to. You might want to bring forward multitasking OSs with a single
address space, such as the Amiga.
> By your definition the firmware in a hard disk must also be GPL because
> GPL code calls it or causes it to be executed. That's absurd.
In fact, that's one of the arguments I used against RMS's position in the
past. Congratulations, I can't recall what the party line on it is.
>> > You are even allowed to ship the GPL code with your application and not
>> > be required to make yours GPL.
>>
>> Simple aggregation is not the same thing as dynamic linking, and
>> viceversa.
>>
>> > I guess I understand why there is confusion. It is perfectly obvious to
>> > me, being a software developer, that dynamic linking avoids the GPL. I
>> > can create a program which contains NO GPL code, ships with NO GPL
>> > code, and yet can use GPL code installed on a users system when it gets
>> > there.
>>
>> This is where RMS disagrees with you. The greater work includes the
>> program AND the library. Once you accept that, it's obvious. And to make
>> you accept that, is why the GPL speaks of "greater work" and not "derived
>> work".
>
> I do not agree with your interpretation here, and I see no supporting
> evidence in the GPL.
I don't see support for yours in the GPL either. Are you willing to be sued
on your opinion?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:25:26 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>> > Conclusion:
>> >
>> > If I distribute a set of GPL libraries to which my application is
>> > dynamically linked, distribute the source to these GPL libraries, along
>> > with any modifications I may have made to them, with my application,
>> > which is in binary form and does not contain any code from these
>> > libraries, I can clearly declare it a separate and non derived work.
>> >
>> > What information am I missing that would make this conclusion
>> > inaccurate?
>>
>> The same I provided you half a dozen times already.
>>
>> According to the author of the license, applications that use
>> functionality from a GPLd library are not reasonably independent from
>> that library. Applications that link (dynamically or statically) to a
>> library are not simply aggregated to that library.
>
> And I have said many times, the author is not authoritative when it comes
> to contract law.
Neither are you. One of the points I tried to make is that the GPL is
poorly written. That it is so should be painfully clear already. You say
it's clear. Yet the clear meaning you see in it is opposite to the clear
meaning the author claims to have put in it. Clear as mud, I say.
> The GPL is a contract. There are many court cases where
> the "intent" as testified by an author are rejected because the agreed
> contract, being binding, override the author.
Sure. Go and get sued on it, and we will all know what the really right
reading is. As I said in my firsts posts in the thread, it's not your
opinion or my opinion or RMS's opinion, it's a court's.
If you are confident that your opinion is right, get some FSF code, hack it
as needed, and try to get sued.
> A contract is a lasting entity. The opinions and objectives of an author
> can change. The GPL is 10 years old. There is no court which would
> entertain legal action that wasn't in a clear legal violation of a 10 year
> old establish "standard" contract, regardless of the author's current
> "intent."
>
>>
>> Are you dense, or are you not reading? If you disagree, o so, but stop
>> asking the same thing, quoting the same paragraph over and over as if I
>> never answered.
>
> Maybe I am dense, but I am reading. I have been over the GPL for a long
> time now,
I've been over the GPL for 4 years now. You are unaware of lots of things
debated over and over, of deeply intrincated points debated over and over,
of weird conclusions reached over and over.
> and in reading it, I don't see your points as being products of
> the GPL. Perhaps they are the hear-say of RMS, but his words are not
> legally binding.
Neither are yours. Are you still saying that your interpretation is obvious
and that we should disregard RMS? Are you still saying the GPL is clear?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:33:48 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-misc-discuss/1998-May/013912.html
Clearly his statements are NOT covered by the current GPL, he is even clear
about how this scenario is not described in the document.
Legally, if it isn't explicitly limited, it isn't limited. His conclusions are
not supported by the GPL which he authored. The program vendor 'B' argument is
in no way disallowed or even provided by the current GPL.
I hadn't seen that last statement, it is chilling.
I can see a "GPL Classic" movement.
I also take issue with the statement:
"The key to answering this is to realize that there is no legal distinction
between dynamic linking and static linking."
This is clearly incorrect, there is sufficient copyright law which states that
I can reference copyrighted material without being in violation of copyright,
but if I incorporate copyrighted material I am in violation."
This is very analogous to dynamic vs static linking.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:37:10 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> I don't see support for yours in the GPL either. Are you willing to be sued
> on your opinion?
I don't see how. I have quoted the GPL in precisely the places where it is
supported.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
