On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated > > license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance > > and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after > > suitable application of weasel words. > > You may think that's logical, but you're wrong. Microsoft can't include > GPL'd code in NT because GPL won't allow binary only releases. The > GPL would be violated. Are you going to thus claim the GPL is more > restrictive that MS's shrinkwrap licenses?
That's why I said weasel words--when going from specific cases to general cases, there are quite a few cracks that show through, you found one of the bigger ones. > > > BTW, since the QPL is apparently not free enough to make it into > > /usr/share/common-licenses, the URL is http://www.trolltech.com/qpl > > Try taking the chip off of your shoulder and looking up the definition > of "common". Then try to count the number of packages with a GPL > license vs. QPL. Is that before or after KDE was found to be undistributable :) Actually, the common-licenses is a little thin compared to the multitude of packages, so I guess the crack about not free enough was a LITTLE out of line...Point taken. > Steve > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
