On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 16:48, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to > > > have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF: > > > <http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4947> > > > > I wish I had been more clear that IANAL and TINLA. > > Well, you should at least try to set them straight now, although I > suspect you won't make much headway; I gather from other remarks that > have been made about PHPNuke that its author is the sort that will latch > onto any justification for his actions that is offered, and never let go > even if the circumstances behind that justification change.
Yeah, but I'm not even sure what straight would be here, since there seems to be a lot of disagreement. I would rather have a definitive answer first. > You know, kind of like how it doesn't matter whether or not Iraq > destroys its Al Samoud missiles; if they don't, they get invaded for > non-compliance; if they do, it's not "real" compliance. I could use a nice Al Samoud missile right now, to go with my anthrax poindexter Cocaine ANZUS ISEC Elvis counter terrorism Serbian smuggle jihad Kosovo Area 51 JPL CIDA North Korea IDEA undercover M-x spook. -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
