On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:54:19AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > As I said, I think all those who are saying otherwise are guilty of > > confusing what we're allowed to do with what we want to do. > > Or, possibly, you're not seeing a crucial aspect of the whole debate. > That's my opinion, anyway.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ for now. I'll save anything else for private mail; I have no desire to have a public argument for the sake of it. Besides which the whole question is moot anyway (we're unlikely to *want* to distribute the code in question as 'free' even though I believe we could). > No; they wish to have their cake and eat it too. They want to publish > source code and build a community, but they also want to withhold parts > of the code. > > I consider such behavior to be deceptive. They could have simply > compiled the "secret" code into binary modules and provided an exemption > clause for the GPLed code; this would have been more honest and > straightforward. Instead, they are playing semantic games and trying to > confuse the issue. Agreed. -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
