From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: DragonEgg has been revived
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 03:56:05 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <1206864096.548909607.907120.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
References: <pdve68$8hn$2@dont-email.me>
 <5c2523c1-9ea5-453c-b80e-9cb0dcd16de0@googlegroups.com>
 <pe12el$b3o$1@dont-email.me>
 <lybmd6hlxl.fsf@pushface.org>
 <293cf892-1320-49e6-a25f-a36ea098cd34@googlegroups.com>
 <ly36yhh66q.fsf@pushface.org>
 <294fa0cd-ec72-4f0f-8065-0a3d5e1087fa@googlegroups.com>
 <lyo9h5ezuh.fsf@pushface.org>
 <ae27a5e0-f4c3-4c4c-bc0c-7c9a5c636efe@googlegroups.com>
 <hBGNC.309481$CH6.293172@fx01.am4>
 <970593e8-2013-49d9-8a71-d5cf160b7fe3@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mgzK1bab4F7fJIJBaOQFWA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Oyc3on5NDL1OLFhs9akNeJ8u6w=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52661
Date: 2018-05-25T03:56:05+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dan'l Miller <optikos@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:59:43 PM UTC-5, Chris M Moore wrote:
>> On 24/05/2018 20:26, Dan'l Miller wrote:
>>> Specifically where in the set {GPLv3, RLEv3.1, copyright law's body of
>>> statutes in USCode, copyright treaties to which the USA is a signatory}
>>> does it overtly clearly say anything even remotely in the ballpark of
>>> that sentence above?  I want to read it with my own eyes.  I want
>>> reading comprehension.  (And hearsay commentary on some forum from 2009
>>> where people speculate and parrot what other people say doesn't count;
>>> I want original sources and seminal references, such as quotations from
>>> members of that set above.)
>> 
>> I mean who uses "overtly clearly"?
> 
> Someone who wants to arrive directly rapidly at the •fully correct•
> answer within the root/seminal normative reference-documents—as opposed
> to the alternative:  ‘10 blind men in India feeling different parts of
> the elephant’, jawboning the same-old same-old parroted
> partially-correct/cherrypicked hearsay for yet another 10 years.


WTF are you banging on about? That made no sense and had no point and was
soooo long winded.

<stripped out pointless ramblings>