Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, might not the DFCL say something like: > > BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD > PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE > MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT > HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENTS MADE WITHIN THE WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY > HELD, SHARED, OR ENDORSED BY THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S).
[snipage] > Now, go ahead, boys, tell me how it's GPL-incompatible and how I'm > violating "the principle of least surprise". This scenario looks good, to me, at least. For whatever that's worth. I had a hypothetical all ready that would show how someone could use the sort of tunneling you were talking about to tie malicious code (e.g., spyware, or copy-right checking code) to something else and claim the result was GPL, despite being unable to prune the nasty stuff out.... But I guess that's superfluous now. ;) -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
