[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 03:55 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 05:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>>> " distribution
>>>> and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the
>>>> above copyright notice and this..." or "this is in public domain..."
>>>> style. I thought those licenses acceptable.
>>> No, that is not acceptable. It does not permit modification, and
>>> that is specifically stated in a Copyright notice, it is NOT
> THESE FILES IN QUESTION DO NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I was responding to the "this is in the public domain" comment you were
responding to. Since it was quoted, I assumed it appeared *somewhere*.
In the future I will keep comments like this to myself, so that the
level of yelling can be minimized.
> But you can't read. You're too fucking stupid.
> Good god! Just precisely how full of yourself do you have to be to NOT
> NOTICE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE FUCKING PUBLIC DOMAIN?
> IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LOOK?
Your accuracy seems to improve as you consider the matter. Rather than
being illiterate (a Kindergarden skill where I am from , rather than a
graduate course as you suggest), I am merely assuming the literacy of
others whom I assumed had looked since they were quoting, and not
policing the entire pppd code for the phrases others with equal access
to grep have said they found. Though I am more than happy to stop
assuming people have read what they quote with attribution, but perhaps
your ire should be directed a bit differently? But no matter. Cheers.