On Jan 4, 2008, at 14:26, "Ted Unangst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year
old rogue clone is needed to get your work done.
No he's claiming that not being able to use a five year old rogue
clone in a commercial setting is a great injustice and unethical. See
now that makes perfect sense. NOT.
