On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not > > > proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and > > > others? > > > > Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial > > context. > > you clearly don't know what proprietary means. if you don't > understand the big words, stop using them. you also totally failed to > comprehend the license.
No, I understood it quite well. > what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year > old rogue clone is needed to get your work done. What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension, for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it proprietary, not that I need that piece of software. Rui -- Or not. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + 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...?
