Daft? Nobody here defended that (the GPL)? Are you tweedledee or tweedledum?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:33 AM > To: Tony Abernethy > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; misc@openbsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > Version 2, June 1991 > > > > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim > copies of this > > license document, but changing it is not allowed. > > > > Seems extremely unlikely that this would give a license to > change other license or copyright documents. Or that could > possible be the intended effect. I doubt it would be > legal/ethical/whatever to take something GPL-licensed and > re-license it as BSD-licensed (except with explicit consent > of the copyright/etc owner(s)). > > Are you intentionally daft? Nobody here defended that. You > seem to have your issues confused. Sort yourself, please. > > Rui > > -- > Hail Eris! > Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 > + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown > Whatever you > + do will be insignificant, > | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi > + So let's do it...?
