Re: pppd

["Christopher D. Lewis" <Lewis@Alumni.Duke.edu>]

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 
>>> unless
>>> that is specifically stated in a Copyright notice, it is NOT 
>>> permitted.

> 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.

Best wishes,
	--Chris

PS:
> 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.