Subject: Re: vi update?
To: Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/22/2000 15:51:16
Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET> writes:
> On 22 Feb 2000, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> > Bill Studenmund <email@example.com> writes:
> > > The only way for us to drop the advertizing clauses is to either re-write
> > > the files from scratch, or get the author to drop the advertizing clause.
> > > Note that Berkeley has done the latter. :-)
> > Is even the "you must include this notice in your documentation"
> > clause allowable under the GPL?
> IIRC the GPL is written to say something like [...]
Uh, OK, great, but:
(1) that didn't answer my question, and
(2) i don't really want to be cc'd on every message you send if you're
going to go off on a crusade about ideology of possible future
versions of the GPL.
I don't care what the GPL might do in the future, i care,
specifically, what it says about this issue right now, since people it
was claimed that that a step (removing the advertising clauses) would
have some positive effect (when i really don't think it would, but I
don't keep all of the relevant information in my head).
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.