Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 16:02 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 20:53 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > No. Under an OSI approved license or any other.
> Is that the crux of your rant?

For your absolute information: NO. Not by a long shot.

I only chose to use what supposedly is the most current wording of that

> That the agreement was changed from DFSG to OSI? (The copy I Googled for
> said DFSG, but I will take your word that some newer official copy says
> OSI).

No. Take Jeff Waugh's word, not mine.

> Instead of all of this insane flaming, I suggest: "I disagree with the
> use of OSI licenses.  I prefer DFSG licenses."
> That is really all that needed to be said.

That isn't true.

> And, in response, I could of said who cares!  And, How is this even an
> issue?  I am done with this thread.

That isn't the issue. It is dishonest that you even try to bring it up.
You'intentionally trying to create an artificial division.


+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]