On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 11:25 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > a) The GPL does not forbid that the software be also licensed under > another license > [ ] yes [ ] no > > b) A copyright owner is allowed to release code they own copyright on > under any given license > [ ] yes [ ] no > > c) The GPL does not forbid copyright owners to release code under other > licenses as well, even proprietary > [ ] yes [ ] no (...) This questionnaire only proves you don't understand. I've never said it is being done illegally. Just that it is imoral. It's a perversion and a way to circunvent the GPL, through aquisition of all rights. I won't answer a biased questionnaire. > All you've said up to now in this thread to anyone you replied is "you > are wrong". That's a lie. It's the oppposite. I've gone to great lengths explaining the problem, and most of the answers are that "I'm wrong". > You have given no real explanation to why these people are > wrong. That's a lie. > You claim you have some deeper knowledge about the GPL's letter, > but also about its spirit, and even what it should have said in an ideal > world. That's a lie. > If you don't > Unless you have some points to contribute about specifically why what > Evolution is doing conflicts with the GPL (besides your personal > feelings), please lower your participation ratio in this thread. You could have spared this list two posts (one of them mine) if you didn't lie. Rui -- + 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. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part