On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:07:09AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at peff.net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You sent mail to a mailbox which is used only for receiving > mailing list postings. > > If you did this because you are sending unsolicited bulk > email, please don't. I don't want to read it. > > If you did this because you are CC'ing me on a list email, > please don't. I'll just end up with two copies of your > response. > > If you did this because you are responding privately to my > list comments, please don't. The list is a public forum, and > others may benefit from our discussion: > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html > > If you really do want to get in touch with me via private > email, please send mail to me directly at: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting mail to public mailing lists with a deliberately invalid reply address, and making people jump through hoops for the privilege of mailing you, is a severe breach of basic etiquette. Please don't do this. > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: (qmail 5475 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2005 02:07:09 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO c-65-96-98-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) (65.96.98.23) > by 0 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2005 02:07:09 -0000 > Received: by c-65-96-98-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) > id CF13D100AA9BC; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400 (EDT) > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mail-Copies-To: nobody > X-No-CC: Branden subscribes to this list; do not CC him on replies. > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:49PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written > > > without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have > > > been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they > > > work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the > > > same freedoms to our users. > > > > > > How is one of these free and the other non-free? > > > > Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly > > language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program > > directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed > > products contain the same amount of information about how they work. > > > > How is one of these free and the other non-free? > > Get out of my head! -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
