On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ted Roby <ted.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath <kam...@geekoids.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby <ted.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes <pak...@pr.neotoma.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: >>>> >>>>> /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca >>>>> >>>> */ >>>> >>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba >>>> >>>> >> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny >> >> Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit can't help you there > > > You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search? > You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca. > > Go entertain yourself with google searches of "Theo" and "Software", > or other commonalities on the 'net. > > My posting had nothing to do with locating the person(s) mentioned above. > That's the greatest absurdity of all shared by you and Orchid man, Chris > Dukes. > He has a cat to get rid of, if you need one.... > > The original issue remains that putting such license wording in your > work means that it can never evolve into public domain.
You're kidding us, right? You can't bother to google something so basic, you complain when someone points you in the right direction, make a quick detour for a spelling flame, then act like it'd be way more work to email a couple of guys randomly (especially for such an uncommon name from Manitoba) than it would be to re-write something from scratch... And I bet no one has *ever* re-licensed their hobby project so it can breath new life. No need to ask when you can peer into the future. Sean is much more patient than I; after the second round of bullshit you dumped here, I'd have told you to eat a dick. Chris
