non military license for ada

non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.

I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

Re: non military license for ada

[Jeffrey Creem]

I would not worry too much... The defense industry is much too buzzword
oriented these days to pay attention to Ada.  If you were doing
some XML thing or named your product by randomly selecting words
from the front page of information week there might be an issue.

Note to everyone else responding to this thread (and to self)..Please
(regardless of which
side of the issues you fall) keep all answers non-political.


"Tony Gair" <tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6a90b886.0303140243.7908f923@posting.google.com...
> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.
>
> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
> current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

Re: non military license for ada

[Victor Porton]

In article <6a90b886.0303140243.7908f923@posting.google.com>,
	tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk (Tony Gair) writes:
> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.
> 
> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
> current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

Hey, idiots are anywhere. Idiots with a technology is idiot. One who 
bought an University diploma for money thinks that he became more 
clever (so idiotic he is) but he didn't.

Mafia increases and so statistics about mafia may decrease. More and 
more people deem themselves clever for paid.

Quite likely that somebody will crash an atomic station or start a 
thermo-nucler fighting rocket with a programming error just by complete 
stupidness.

Ada is a bastion which partially (unreliably) protects from this in
nuclear industries!

Better if militaries will have tools in Ada, independingly of how bad 
militaries may be!

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used by the Defense industry.

Those licenses have generally been failures. Such a license makes
software non-free by the standards of GNU and Debian, for example,
so any sites adhering to those guidelines will refuse to distribute
software licensed in this way. And there's enough free software out
there that no one is going to assume a burdensome nuisance for the
sake of some developer with an axe to grind. There's quite a bit of
recent history of packages and developers being kicked out of open
source projects for behaving in this way.

Re: non military license for ada

[Stephen Leake]

tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk (Tony Gair) writes:

> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.

Just out of curiosity, how would you define a "defense industry"?

For example, I'm sure Boeing does some defense business. Does that
mean they could not use your software in their civilian airlines?

I doubt you could define this in a way that was meaningful.

> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, 

Why particular for Ada?

> and like to use it, but do not wish to help the current monkeyman
> leaders of the tree world.

The leader of the free world are _not_ the defense industry; they are
the politicians. 

There are better ways to oppose war.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.

If it is open source then any Defense industry may use it. But I don't
think this is something to worry about. 

> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
> current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

I don't see why this is a particular problem for Ada. DoD and other
nations use other languages as well as Ada.

-- 
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

Re: non military license for ada

[sk]

 > The leader of the free world are _not_ the defense
 > industry; they are the politicians.

The trouble is, these politicians are beholden to
specialized interests ... tobacco, arms etc.

However, the real issue of this thread is the one
of whether the software will be used if it is under
an alternative license ?

Unless a license is a known Open Source license
(GPL, BSD etc) or a proprietary license by a well
established company, I personally will not go near
the software.

This means I am not one of the responders to
V Porton's efforts.

Wonderful as the softwarwe might be, the licensing
is so fuzzy and V Porton does not have the status
of MS or IBM, sorry.

I am sure that a large proportion of people have
a similar position. So license it how you like,
but a non standard license probably dooms a product
to some obscure non-acceptance.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------

Re: non military license for ada

[Christopher Browne]

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whensk <noname@myob.com>wrote:
> The trouble is, these politicians are beholden to
> specialized interests ... tobacco, arms etc.

.. And the former points out a probably more interesting case.

A dozen years ago, would-be-pacifists liked to make up licenses
forbidding "military use" or its use by anyone having anything to do
with South Africa (because they had heard somewhere that Apartheid Was
Bad and should be protested), which generally led to the resultant
software being considered an irrelevant curiosity because evaluating
whether particular use was legal or not just wasn't worth doing.

Today, "everyone" knows that the tobacco industry is bad, evil, and
such, and so it would be perfectly sensible to forbid use of your
software by the "tobacco industry," right?

So Philip Morris and Company shouldn't use the code.

But what are the /real/ implications?  Should it just by PM&C?  Or
should it also be their ad agency?  (Probably) 

But how about some subsidiary that PM&C owns that has nothing really
to do with tobacco?

In Canada, our "poster child" on this was the Imperial Tobacco
Company, which (at one point) owned:
 a) Shoppers Drug Mart, the biggest national chain of drug stores, and
 b) Canada Trust, one of the better financial institutions.

Should SDM and CT be permitted to use the software?  Or are they
boycotted too?  

And if they /are/ boycotted, does this not run the risk of making
/everyone/ steer clear of your software, thus leading to the software
being an irrelevant curiosity?

That oughtn't be an easy set of questions to answer...
-- 
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html
"I heard that if you play  the Windows CD  backward, you get a satanic
message. But that's  nothing compared to  when you play it forward: It
installs Windows...." -- G. R. Gaudreau

Re: non military license for ada

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:

>A dozen years ago, would-be-pacifists liked to make up licenses
>forbidding "military use" or its use by anyone having anything to do
>with South Africa

Funny thing.

Consider a company that sells paint which might be used in painting
military aircrafts... is that "military use" already?

>Today, "everyone" knows that the tobacco industry is bad, evil, and
>such, and so it would be perfectly sensible to forbid use of your
>software by the "tobacco industry," right?

Hmm.

>So Philip Morris and Company shouldn't use the code.

AFAIK, they make quite heavy use of the code which is written in my
company. In binary form, of course but this doesn't really change the
view.

>And if they /are/ boycotted, does this not run the risk of making
>/everyone/ steer clear of your software, thus leading to the software
>being an irrelevant curiosity?

Exactly that.

>That oughtn't be an easy set of questions to answer...

IMO the answer is one of the following: Either define clearly what you
mean with "military use" (this task might even be impossible if you
take all possible interpretations in account) or completely forget
about such a license.


Vinzent.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Christopher Browne wrote:
> That oughtn't be an easy set of questions to answer...

It's very easy to answer. They'll take a look at the
license, mumble "Bozo", and move on.

Re: non military license for ada

[sk]

<cbbrowne@acm.org>

This, I think is worth highlighting

 > ... which generally led to the resultant software being
 > considered an irrelevant curiosity because evaluating
 > whether particular use was legal or not just wasn't worth doing.

<JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> : < ..snip ...>

So in summary, to the OP, you can license how you like, but I
cannot use your code in my product for a paint company (which
happens to have a government contract for navy gray) which
uses my software for inventory.

... too many ramifications for ad-hoc licensing schemes :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> 
>> That oughtn't be an easy set of questions to answer...
> 
> 
> It's very easy to answer. They'll take a look at the
> license, mumble "Bozo", and move on.

Yup, that's what I do when I see licenses like that - I've seen quite a 
few - and I've never seen one that discluded me from using it.  My 
suggestion would be to GPL it and that way any proprietry software 
developed by the people Tony mentioned is unlikely to use it.

Re: non military license for ada

[sk]

<spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>
 > ... GPL it and that way any proprietry software developed
 > by the people Tony mentioned is unlikely to use it.

The use of GPL does not prevent people from using code in
proprietary software. It does prevent people from publically
releasing the proprietary software without releasing the
source code.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I retained one to verify my
position; however, my use of GPL code does not require
me to make my source public unless I make the final
product public. A military entity is not making their
final products public (up to the point of impact
anyway :-) either, so they can happily use GPL without
any problems (unless, I believe, they try to sell the
product to another entity).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

sk wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, nor have I retained one to verify my
> position; however, my use of GPL code does not require
> me to make my source public unless I make the final
> product public. A military entity is not making their
> final products public (up to the point of impact
> anyway :-) either, so they can happily use GPL without
> any problems (unless, I believe, they try to sell the
> product to another entity).
> 

Oh well, you learn something new everyday (I thought the GPL forced 
developers to distribute sources regardless).

I'm starting to rate software licenses as one of the "things I hate 
about software development" because of the minefield they create and 
their complexity (the others being software patents, sloppy management 
and stress).

Even the pay isn't that good anymore (well on this side of the pond any 
way - and round here you'd be lucky to get a job with top honours and/or 
10 years of prev experience; everybodies leaving the uk - and scotland 
in particular - with many companies who would be good to have invest are 
outsourcing to India (some are shutting down operations here and 
outsourcing).  The (immediate) future is bleak for graduates & software 
developers as a whole).

Seriously considering jacking in SD after I grad and working in Safeway! :(

Re: non military license for ada

[Stephane Richard]

The GPL is detailed as far as source distribution and alterations is
concerned.  IF you want to make a commercial product or a millitary one,
it's the same thing...you can use 100% GPL or LGPL products (compilers,
tools, etc etc...) t crrfeate a commercial app and at that point, you
definitaly dont need to, nor are you required, to distribute the source with
your application.  The GPL is there especially for people wanting to create
an OpenSource application that is to be distributed under the GPL
licence....for all other projects, whether personal, professional,
millitary, religious, govermental in nature is not GPL material.  Therefore
you can choose what you want to do.






"Tony Gair" <tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6a90b886.0303140243.7908f923@posting.google.com...
> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.
>
> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
> current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

Re: non military license for ada

[Richard Riehle]

sk wrote:

>  > The leader of the free world are _not_ the defense
>  > industry; they are the politicians.
>
> The trouble is, these politicians are beholden to
> specialized interests ... tobacco, arms etc.

Exactly.  You have just identified one of the reasons why
the DoD has de-escalated its support for Ada.   Never
underestimate the power of lobbyists, even lobbyists in
the software development sector.

Richard Riehle

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

chris.danx wrote:
> 
> Yup, that's what I do when I see licenses like that - I've seen quite a 
> few - and I've never seen one that discluded me from using it.  My 
> suggestion would be to GPL it and that way any proprietry software 
> developed by the people Tony mentioned is unlikely to use it.
> 

No it doesn't. Just look at the statments from DoD about their new Combat
System they are making (or having made). From what I read this system
will use open source / GPL software and this was not a problem according
to DoD. Even Microsoft uses GPL software.


-- 
With sufficient thrust,  pigs fly just fine.  However, this  is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going
to land, and it could be dangerous  sitting under them as  they fly
overhead.                                                [RFC 1925]

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

chris.danx wrote:
> Oh well, you learn something new everyday (I thought the GPL forced 
> developers to distribute sources regardless).

No it doesn't.

-- 
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

yep GPL is the way to go, I was interested in the philosphy and if it
had been tried before.

Interestingly I got a couple of emails from people who had their
software used in the er .. Defence Industry and had been horrified by
it, but obviously did not want to identify themselves.

Oh what it is to be free.........and a white man.

Thanks for the replys

Re: non military license for ada

[Faust]

sk <noname@myob.com> writes:


> I am sure that a large proportion of people have
> a similar position. So license it how you like,
> but a non standard license probably dooms a product
> to some obscure non-acceptance.

Another option is to use a standard license but to put
a line in the start up screen saying " If you are a military user, 
I hope this software leads you to bomb yourslf "

-- 





Breathing in, out,
forward, back,
living, dying.

Two arrows meet in mid air,
slice and sail on through
into open space.

I turn around.


gesshu soko 
death poem
january 1696

Re: non military license for ada

[Georg Bauhaus]

Stephane Richard <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote:
: The GPL is detailed as far as source distribution and alterations is
: concerned.  IF you want to make a commercial product or a millitary one,
: it's the same thing...you can use

Define: use.

: 100% GPL or LGPL products (compilers,

Define: (100-n)% GPL product.

: tools, etc etc...) t crrfeate a commercial app and at that point, you
: definitaly dont need to, nor are you required, to distribute the source with
: your application.

The source of the tools? Depending on your "use" of the tools, their
source and
other issues, it might be that you do not have to distribute the source of
the tools. For example, it might be that you do not have to distribute
the GNAT sources with your application. For example, there are library
packages in GNAT distributions that tell you about a special exception
that will allow their use in your product, and not cause the product to be
GPL software by this use.

IANAL, but still,  the wording you have chosen might be misleading
I think..

: The GPL is there especially for people wanting to create
: an OpenSource application that is to be distributed under the GPL
: licence....for all other projects, whether personal, professional,
: millitary, religious, govermental in nature is not GPL material.  Therefore
: you can choose what you want to do.

that again is a somewhat vague statement. 
Better ask a laywer.

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> No it doesn't. Just look at the statments from DoD about their new Combat
> System they are making (or having made). From what I read this system
> will use open source / GPL software and this was not a problem according
> to DoD. 


Well then, the OP has two choices.  Release code with some open source 
license and have people use it or release code with a license like he 
wants and have his code live in the limbo for all time.  The choice is 
the OPs.

 > Even Microsoft uses GPL software.

Where?  IIRC they have used x licensed code and bsd licensed code, but 
where have they used GPL?  They've probably evaluated GPL software but I 
doubt very much Bill would let them use the software for work or 
incorporate it into products (officially).

Re: non military license for ada

[Florian Weimer]

tony_gair@yahoo.co.uk (Tony Gair) writes:

> Is anyone aware of any open source license which stipulates that the
> software cannot be used directly or in a supporting role by the Attack
> and thieve oil industry er..... sorry Defense industry.

Discrimination against fields of endeavor prevents a license from
being an Open Source license.

Of course, you might add a clause which is not a restriction because
the acts that are being restricted are not allowed by general law
(i.e. "must not be used to prepare or conduct a war of aggression").

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

chris.danx wrote:
> Where?  IIRC they have used x licensed code and bsd licensed code, but 
> where have they used GPL?  They've probably evaluated GPL software but I 
> doubt very much Bill would let them use the software for work or 
> incorporate it into products (officially).

Probably you are right, but the article I read (unfortunately in
Norwegian) it was said that even Microsoft had gotten around the GPL
problem so DoD was confident. Perhaps the article mixed BSD license and
GPL. 

Here is a pdf from DISA about Open Source in DoD

http://www.opengroup.org/public/member/q402/proceedings/plenary-monday/linker.pdf

It discusses GPL a bit too.

-- 
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

Re: non military license for ada

[sk]

Hi,

<fw@deneb.enyo.de> :
 > Of course, you might add a clause which is not a restriction because
 > the acts that are being restricted are not allowed by general law
 > (i.e. "must not be used to prepare or conduct a war of aggression").

I do not think that this would be acceptable. I think that you can
no longer legitimately call it the GPL license as provided by the
FSF.

 >		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
 >		       Version 2, June 1991
 >
 > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 >     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

The term GPL is copyrighted, "changing it is not allowed"
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------

Re: non military license for ada

[Michael Bode]

"chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:

>  > Even Microsoft uses GPL software.
> 
> Where?  

There: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/howtobuy/default.asp

-- 
F�r OE User: http://learn.to/quote/
OE users please read http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
PGP Key: http://home.t-online.de/home/michael_bode/
Legal Disclaimer: Wer Sarkasmus findet, darf ihn behalten.

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1047676770.614608@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > That oughtn't be an easy set of questions to answer...
> 
> It's very easy to answer. They'll take a look at the
> license, mumble "Bozo", and move on.

To be called a bozo by you is a compliment.....thank you.

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

Read the PDF and they obviously are using GPL. From the sound of it I
don't think they would keep the law regarding GPL but do have a
commitment to their own software companies IP.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1047676770.614608@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
>>It's very easy to answer. They'll take a look at the
>>license, mumble "Bozo", and move on.
> To be called a bozo by you is a compliment.....thank you.

Among other things, I suspect that licenses like these
will never have been vetted by a lawyer, and that's going
to be obvious to the lawyers who have to approve the use
of the software.

I feel perfectly justified in calling a Bozo those people
who reserve freedom for those who agree with them.

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

> I feel perfectly justified in calling a Bozo those people
> who reserve freedom for those who agree with them.

Please explain how your rights and freedoms are being removed from you
not being able to use a piece of software for military purposes.

Perhaps you are talking about the freedom to bomb, maim and kill or
equip others with that ability.

Perhaps we are just invoking the magical flag waving bushism of
Freedom, which apparently includes the freedom to arrest librarians
for Treason, and refuse them counsel for their henious crime of
refusing to answer what books that bearded gentleman has just borrowed
from the library.

Thanks again for the entertainment.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Please explain how your rights and freedoms are being removed from you
> not being able to use a piece of software for military purposes.

I apologize. I see from your original post that you just talk about
open source, not free software.

> Perhaps you are talking about the freedom to bomb, maim and kill or
> equip others with that ability.

It's certainly important for my government to be able to do that.
If I were writing free software, I would certainly wantthem to be
able to use it.

> Perhaps we are just invoking the magical flag waving bushism of
> Freedom, which apparently includes the freedom to arrest librarians
> for Treason, and refuse them counsel for their henious crime of
> refusing to answer what books that bearded gentleman has just borrowed
> from the library.

I expect that if this actually happens, that freedom won't last long.
Of course, public librarians are government employees. I don't know by
what premise they think they have the right to withold this information
from their employers.

> Thanks again for the entertainment.

Glad to help.

Re: non military license for ada

[tmoran]

> Of course, public librarians are government employees. I don't know by
When willful ignorance hurts other people, I complain.  Having this
level of stupidity on c.l.a. hurts me and other readers.  Please take
it elsewhere.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>Of course, public librarians are government employees. I don't know by
> 
> When willful ignorance hurts other people, I complain.  Having this
> level of stupidity on c.l.a. hurts me and other readers.  Please take
> it elsewhere.

I believe this argument comes under the definition of "prejudicial language",
<http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm>, in the index of logical fallacies.
    "Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value
     or moral goodness to believing the proposition."

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

> I expect that if this actually happens, that freedom won't last long.
> Of course, public librarians are government employees. I don't know by
> what premise they think they have the right to withold this information
> from their employers.

In the sixtys this did actually happen ( or was it the fiftys) and the
lady librarian concerned despite being applauded by her profession
never managed to work again for a library (when she was eventually
released from federal custody).

This legislation has now re appeared see www.cla-net.org . i.e. this
has actually happened.

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

Tony Gair wrote:
> This legislation has now re appeared see www.cla-net.org . i.e. this
> has actually happened.

Sadly it is so. Bush is talking about "fight for our Freedom", but he
passes laws to restict it. Is it only me that sees the paradox here?

By the way don't trust all you see on CNN or other networks when the war
in Iraq 2.0 starts. CNN is censoring the information before presenting
it.  Independant reporters are threatened that satelite uplinks will be
fire upon etc... So reflect when you see the news.

Also check out:

   http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58043,00.html?
   http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
   http://www.thememoryhole.org/


I'm sad for the thousands of civilians who will be killed.

-- 
This is Ada95 land. On quiet nights you can hear C programmers debug.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Sadly it is so. Bush is talking about "fight for our Freedom", but he
> passes laws to restict it. Is it only me that sees the paradox here?

It sounds like the law is to let investigations go forward
more easily. It's not preventing you from reading whatever
you want to, but it may make it easier for the government
to find out what you read. I've said before that I favor
no limits on what information may be gathered from public
sources. Since public libraries are explicitly government-
run agencies, I find it even more absurd that they should
be forbidden from sharing information with the rest of the
government.

> CNN is censoring

Or perhaps just editing.

> Independant reporters are threatened that satelite
 > uplinks will be fire upon

This is claimed by one BBC correspondent. I assume that the
Pentagon intends to target any detected communications sources
that it doesn't know about. If that happens to be a freelance
reporter in the middle of a war zone, well, as she said, they've
been warned.

>    http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58043,00.html?

OK, this is a reporter who intends to go to northern Iraq. Cool.

>    http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

This is the bombing story above. OK. How is the Pentagon supposed
to distinguish between Iraqi C^3 and stray reporters?

>    http://www.thememoryhole.org/

The war pictures? It rather reminds me of the anti-choice
people who like to show pictures of aborted fetuses. Yes,
I already knew that war kills and maims. So do planes flown
into buildings. The anti-war people are fond of saying that
it's dangerous to attack Iraq because it will invite more
incidents of terrorism against us. On the contrary, attacking
Iraq will demonstrate to nations so inclined that if they do
not restrain their support of movements which wish to attack
Americans and their interests, they might find themselves on
the receiving end next. I rather like the image of the US as
a maniacal junkyard dog that you do well not to provoke.

> I'm sad for the thousands of civilians who will be killed.

So am I, to the extent that those civilians do not support the
actions of their government. Unfortunately, if we decided not
to go to war for fear of killing civilians, then that would
simply encourage enemies to surround their military infrastructure
with civilians.

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> CNN is censoring
> 
> Or perhaps just editing.

Hardly in view of what happend in War on Iraq 1.0 where Pentagon was
inside the editing rooms with representatives.

>>    http://www.thememoryhole.org/
> 
> The war pictures? It rather reminds me of the anti-choice people who

No, the site in general.

>> I'm sad for the thousands of civilians who will be killed.
> 
> So am I, to the extent that those civilians do not support the actions
> of their government. Unfortunately, if we decided not to go to war for
> fear of killing civilians, then that would simply encourage enemies to
> surround their military infrastructure with civilians.

Which would be a breach of the Geneva convetion. However I don't think
Saddam cares so he will keep his forces inside the towns which will lead
to a lot of civilans killed. Either by lack of pure water (due to long
time siege) or from cross-fire/bombings or chemical weapons. I just hope
it will be as few as possible although I'm highly pessimistic.

Preben

1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Frank J. Lhota]

First of all, I obviously do not object to occasionally veering off topic.
As a courtesy to those who wish to read only Ada posts, however, please
indicate when you are venting on something beside Ada in the subject line.

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb7e0ib.389.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Sadly it is so. Bush is talking about "fight for our Freedom", but he
> passes laws to restict it. Is it only me that sees the paradox here?

No, you are far from alone in your concern about civil liberties. All of the
american civil liberties groups (such as the ACLU) have experienced
tremendous growth since the passage of the U.S. PATRIOT act. Early on in
life, I have taken to heart the words of Thomas Jefferson that liberty
requires eternal vigilance, and I have maintained a membership in some
organization fighting for civil liberties for the last two decades.
Currently, I am a proud member of the Institute for Justice
(http://www.ij.org).

Moreover, you will find ardent defenders of civil liberties on both sides of
the war issue. Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens support the
overthrow of Hussein, but object to the overreaching U.S. PATRIOT act.

> By the way don't trust all you see on CNN or other networks when the war
> in Iraq 2.0 starts. CNN is censoring the information before presenting
> it.  Independant reporters are threatened that satelite uplinks will be
> fire upon etc... So reflect when you see the news.

In general, you should not trust all that see what you see / hear / read
from any one news source. Everyone has their biases, and no matter how hard
these news organizations try to be fair, these biases will effect what they
report. Always go to multiple news sources, including those with conflicting
points of view.

With respect to CNN, however, I would not go so far as to say that they are
"censoring" the news. That is a serious charge, and I do not see any
evidence that th

> I'm sad for the thousands of civilians who will be killed.

We are all sad that civilians may be killed by this war, and we all hope
that there are not thousands of such deaths. But keep in mind that there
have been hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds killed by Hussein, not to
mentions the Southern Shi'ites, Chaldeans and political dissidents. We all
want peace in Iraq, but we should be aware that Iraq has not been at peace
for two decades now, nor is it likely to experience peace while Hussein is
in power.

Re: 1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> Currently, I am a proud member of the Institute for Justice

Hey, me too! Cool. I also recently joined FIRE <http://www.thefire.org>.

Re: 1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Frank J. Lhota]

Whoops! I sent before finishing one paragraph...

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RdLda.50789$68.42388@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> With respect to CNN, however, I would not go so far as to say that they
are
> "censoring" the news. That is a serious charge, and I do not see any
> evidence that th

... they are guilty of consciously slanting their coverage.

Sorry about that, folks.

BTW is there sufficient interest to justify the creation of the newsgroup
comp.lang.ada.politics?

Re: 1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <RdLda.50789$68.42388@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:

> First of all, I obviously do not object to occasionally veering off topic.

But not everybody feels that way.

> As a courtesy to those who wish to read only Ada posts, however, please
> indicate when you are venting on something beside Ada in the subject line.

Even better, put it in an _appropriate_ newsgroup.

The reason there are multiple newsgroups in Usenet is so people can
pick and choose the topics they want to know about.  Those who adopt
anarchy to push their political viewpoint on others besmirch their
cause with the appearance that _everyone_ who takes that point of
view is also someone who does not believe in order.

Those who do not believe in order are unlikely to win converts to
their cause in an Ada newsgroup.

Re: 1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> Even better, put it in an _appropriate_ newsgroup.

Who wants to read those? They're full of ranting lunatics! :-)

Re: 1000 Km Off Topic: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1048023179.291801@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> Even better, put it in an _appropriate_ newsgroup.
> 
> Who wants to read those? They're full of ranting lunatics! :-)

Of course some people have that opinion about newsgroups full of
compiler discussions :-)

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

> the receiving end next. I rather like the image of the US as
> a maniacal junkyard dog that you do well not to provoke.
> 

Dog, junkyard and maniacal says a lot. 

So when the survivors of both our Grandchildren wonder why that
sterility virus was released amongst them whilst they were still
burying the dead from the last nano laserbot attack, my corpse can
stand up and point the finger at your corpse and say "It was that
Bozo".

Re: non military license for ada

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
: It sounds like the law is to let investigations go forward
: more easily. It's not preventing you from reading whatever
: you want to, but it may make it easier for the government
: to find out what you read.

So it is now slightly more close to "Big Brother is watching you".
A government isn't good per se, people working for a government
don't do right automatically, judges, lawyers, representatives lie
as much as anyone else might, and an Ada compiler isn't right per se
if I may make this comparison.
Seriously, what kind of logic leads one to justify that
the government is, and should be, always entitled to know
everything about what citizens (and non-citizens) read?
Likewise, an Ada compiler migth make mistakes, with desastrous
effects, although it is titled Ada compiler, and sort of entitled
to know what each peace of the compiled program reads.
You don't submit your programs to independent third party scrutiny
(maybe a human eye) and keep your compiler out?

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Dog, junkyard and maniacal says a lot. 
The president has taken an oath to serve and protect
this country, and he must do that as he best sees fit.

A war against Iraq will cause countries to think twice
before funneling support to groups which attack American
interests, because they will know that they cannot delay
retribution by miring it with the niceties of endless
United Nations discussion.

There are ample reasons to believe that much of the
opposition to the war by other governments has more
to do with trying to restrain American power than with
pacifistic principles.

> "It was that Bozo".
:-)

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> A war against Iraq will cause countries to think twice
> before funneling support to groups which attack American
> interests, because they will know that they cannot delay
> retribution by miring it with the niceties of endless
> United Nations discussion.

The only problem is that there is no proof of it. Besides didn't most of
the terrorist of 9/11 come from Saudi-Arabia and Egypt?

> There are ample reasons to believe that much of the
> opposition to the war by other governments has more
> to do with trying to restrain American power than with
> pacifistic principles.

It has as much to do with International Law and pre-emptive War.

Preben

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> The only problem is that there is no proof of it.

I didn't say there was, only that a war against Iraq
will make other supporters of anti-American attackers
much more cautious.

> Besides didn't most of the terrorist of 9/11 come
 > from Saudi-Arabia and Egypt?

Yes, but Iraq makes a much better target, since the
Saudis and Egyptians are nominally our allies. But the
Saudis know how close they are to serious trouble.

> It has as much to do with International Law
 > and pre-emptive War.

International law is for well-fed UN diplomats to
natter on about, not for serious resolutions to
problems. France is right now fighting a war in
the Ivory Coast. Where is the international law
there, or the outrage?

Re: non military license for ada

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> I didn't say there was, only that a war against Iraq will make other
> supporters of anti-American attackers much more cautious.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that it may only recruit more terrorists :-(

> Yes, but Iraq makes a much better target, since the Saudis and
> Egyptians are nominally our allies. But the Saudis know how close they
> are to serious trouble.

And Iraq has a lot of oil... I still have problems seeing that the
reason for attacking Iraq has to do with the war on terror. Perhaps to
some extent, but it is not the real reason IMHO.

However as there is no hope that there won't be a war I at least hope
they wait with the attack a couple of days. The reason is that there are
now big outburst on the sun which according to the astonomers can disturb
the GPS (and other) satelites. The earth is expected to be affected
from later today (tonight here) and the next 24-48 hours.

I'm thinink of missiles if they use GPS may miss the target by some
hundred meteres due to this and hit more civilians. At least I hope they
consider this as well before launching the bombardment.

> International law is for well-fed UN diplomats to natter on about, not
> for serious resolutions to problems. France is right now fighting a
> war in the Ivory Coast. Where is the international law there, or the
> outrage?

First: You claim USA is above the law? I don't think so, but your
argumentation sure sounds like it. It sounds like you  are saying
domestic laws are for well-fed politicians to natter on about, not for
serious resolutions to problems. Please think.

International law is for keeping an order and stability in the world
and not have a world full of rogue nations doing whatever they want.

Second: Read

   http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/02/05/ivorycoast030205
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2728909.stm

Preben

Re: non military license for ada

[Pascal Obry]

Please move this thread to another News group.

Thanks,
Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: non military license for ada

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:

>And Iraq has a lot of oil... I still have problems seeing that the
>reason for attacking Iraq has to do with the war on terror. Perhaps to
>some extent, but it is not the real reason IMHO.
>[...]
>
>First: You claim USA is above the law? I don't think so, but your
>argumentation sure sounds like it.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nssg.pdf
http://www.nssg.gov/addedum/Implementation_Plans.pdf


Vinzent.

Re: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <b5ahac$276qli$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>, Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> writes:
> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:
> 
>>And Iraq has a lot of oil... I still have problems seeing that the

Please move this thread to another newsgroup.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Unfortunately I'm afraid that it may only recruit more terrorists :-(

If you operate out of fear of terrorists then You Have Let
The Terrorists Win(tm). If it recruits more terrorists, we'll
kill them too. But if nations support them, we'll make those
nations pay a fearful cost.

> And Iraq has a lot of oil...

And the Saudis don't?

> I still have problems seeing that the reason for attacking
 > Iraq has to do with the war on terror.

Yes, I know. Paranoid conspiracy theories are a hallmark of
the powerless and disenfranchised. You will notice that we
did not keep Kuwait's oil the first time around.

> At least I hope they consider this as well before
 > launching the bombardment.

Not even the heavens will keep the US from its just and
righteous war! :-)

> First: You claim USA is above the law?

Yep. "International Law" that is.

> It sounds like you  are saying domestic laws are for well-fed
 > politicians to natter on about, not for serious resolutions to
 > problems. Please think.

Domestic law is an accord with our constitution, and is enforced
by Americans with guns when necessary. I have no trust or faith
in international law - I don't know what principles it's based
on, and I certianly don't intend to allow it to be enforced by
foreign troops.

> International law is for keeping an order and stability in the world
> and not have a world full of rogue nations doing whatever they want.

Last I looked, the world was neither orderly nor stable,
and was full of rogue nations doing whatever they want.
So I conclude that international law is a miserable failure.

Re: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1048107321.823716@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> Unfortunately I'm afraid that it may only recruit more terrorists :-(
> 
> If you operate out of fear of terrorists then You Have Let

Please move this discussion out of comp.lang.ada.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> Please move this discussion out of comp.lang.ada.

Hey, Jean Ichbiah is French!

Re: non military license for ada

[Tony Gair]

My last message on this thread :-

Anyone wishing to help design an ada license where the licensed
software is excluded for use in support of or direct military purposes
please email me.

I will keep names and emails private unless otherwise specifically
told it's ok to mention.


Apologies to those distracted from the normal business of
comp.lang.ada

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

War started at 7.55 or thereabouts uk time.  While I was out at the pub 
with some mates, the US-UK alliance probably bombed some innocent 
civilians into oblivion.  Their fathers and mothers (if alive) have 
probably sworn to avenge their deaths and will fight for Saddam.

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <b5ahac$276qli$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>, Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> writes:
> 
>>Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And Iraq has a lot of oil... I still have problems seeing that the
> 
> 
> Please move this thread to another newsgroup.

If you don't want to read it, the simplest thing is to kill it. 
Otherwise it's just gonna bug you.  Kill it and be done with it.  Let 
Hyman and whomever slug it out while you ignore what's happening...

Re: non military license for ada

[Vinzent Hoefler]

"chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>If you don't want to read it, the simplest thing is to kill it. 

Reminds me on someth^H^Hone. :->


Vinzent.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

chris.danx wrote:
> the US-UK alliance probably bombed some innocent civilians into oblivion

Not yet, from what I'm seeing on TV.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Tony Gair wrote:
> Anyone wishing to help design an ada license where the licensed
> software is excluded for use in support of or direct military purposes
> please email me.

You might want to look at the Hacktivismo license,
<http://www.hacktivismo.com/hessla.html>.

Re: non military license for ada

[Christopher Browne]

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> transmitted:
> Tony Gair wrote:
>> Dog, junkyard and maniacal says a lot.
> The president has taken an oath to serve and protect
> this country, and he must do that as he best sees fit.
>
> A war against Iraq will cause countries to think twice
> before funneling support to groups which attack American
> interests, because they will know that they cannot delay
> retribution by miring it with the niceties of endless
> United Nations discussion.

There seems a fair chance that this will have a pretty destructive
effect on the credibility of the UN, which, to some, is a good thing,
and to others, not so good...

> There are ample reasons to believe that much of the
> opposition to the war by other governments has more
> to do with trying to restrain American power than with
> pacifistic principles.

It's rather interesting that the main recent markets for Iraqi oil,
and the main recent suppliers of weapons to Iraq, happen to be the
very same countries opposing UN intervention.
-- 
output = ("aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
This is Linux country.  On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Christopher Browne wrote:
> There seems a fair chance that this will have a pretty destructive
> effect on the credibility of the UN

The UN has no credibility. They are a bunch of buffoons,
occasionally useful as a beard.

> It's rather interesting that the main recent markets for Iraqi oil,
> and the main recent suppliers of weapons to Iraq, happen to be the
> very same countries opposing UN intervention.

Not surprising at all. Business is business.
Principled behavior is rare, alas.

Re: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <U68ea.3072$ug.851@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, "chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:

>> Please move this thread to another newsgroup.
> 
> If you don't want to read it, the simplest thing is to kill it. 
> Otherwise it's just gonna bug you.  Kill it and be done with it.  Let 
> Hyman and whomever slug it out while you ignore what's happening...

I am reluctant to believe that the bulk of my fellow Ada fans are
so disrespectful of communication protocols.

Re: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <xAaea.59247$68.54861@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>> There seems a fair chance that this will have a pretty destructive
>> effect on the credibility of the UN
> 
> The UN has no credibility. They are a bunch of buffoons,
> occasionally useful as a beard.

Please also take _this_ discussion out of comp.lang.ada.

Re: non military license for ada

[Dale Stanbrough]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > There seems a fair chance that this will have a pretty destructive
> > effect on the credibility of the UN
> 
> The UN has no credibility. They are a bunch of buffoons,
> occasionally useful as a beard.

They clearly have no credibility with -you-, however credibility
is a matter of perception, and it thus a personal issue.

Are you saying that you think UNICEF is totally useless, or that
the UN troops stationed in Crete have had no effect? If not, then
surely they have -some- credibility in your eyes.

> 
> > It's rather interesting that the main recent markets for Iraqi oil,
> > and the main recent suppliers of weapons to Iraq, happen to be the
> > very same countries opposing UN intervention.
> 
> Not surprising at all. Business is business.
> Principled behavior is rare, alas.

I suspect it's not that bad. People tend to notice bad things
more often than they notice good things.

Dale

Re: non military license for ada

[Pascal Obry]

"chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:

> If you don't want to read it, the simplest thing is to kill it. Otherwise
> it's just gonna bug you.  Kill it and be done with it.  Let Hyman and
> whomever slug it out while you ignore what's happening...

Of course it is possible to kill a subject. Yet this is CLA.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: non military license for ada

[Hyman Rosen]

Dale Stanbrough wrote:
> Are you saying that you think UNICEF is totally useless

UNICEF is a relief agency. While that's nice, it doesn't have
much to do with international conflict resolution.

> the UN troops stationed in Crete

What UN troops in Crete? I've never heard of that, and couldn't
Google up any references.

Re: non military license for ada

[Dale Stanbrough]

In article <iHcea.59288$68.40805@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Dale Stanbrough wrote:
> > Are you saying that you think UNICEF is totally useless
> 
> UNICEF is a relief agency. While that's nice, it doesn't have
> much to do with international conflict resolution.

UNICEF is run by the UN. It doesn't have much to do with ICR; it
may be able to do international conflict prevention via it's work;
in either case its link to international conflict resolution is
irrelavent - we are discussing the credibility of the UN, and they
don't only do one thing.

> > the UN troops stationed in Crete
> 
> What UN troops in Crete? I've never heard of that, and couldn't
> Google up any references.

Sorry! I meant to say Cyprus.


Dale

Re: non military license for ada

[sk]

Thirded, please take this elsewhere. A kill list is no
good because not only do people go way off-topic, they
also refuse to retitle the thread. Therefore a thread
which might still be useful gets killed aswell.

RD has over the years, often suggested a moderated
cla, are you all going to force the rest of us to
push for it ?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------

Re: non military license for ada

[Marin David Condic]

Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:wX1KOA4AzqL7@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <xAaea.59247$68.54861@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Hyman Rosen
<hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> There seems a fair chance that this will have a pretty destructive
> >> effect on the credibility of the UN
> >
> > The UN has no credibility. They are a bunch of buffoons,
> > occasionally useful as a beard.
>
> Please also take _this_ discussion out of comp.lang.ada

Amen! If you guys want to slug it out in a debate about anything other than
Ada, *please* take it to a newsgroup that is appropriate. The rest of us
shouldn't have to keep filtering out threads to keep a newsgroup relevant to
its subject matter.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================
.

Re: non military license for ada

[chris.danx]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <U68ea.3072$ug.851@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, "chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:
> 
> I am reluctant to believe that the bulk of my fellow Ada fans are
> so disrespectful of communication protocols.

excuse me?  Last time I checked the internet was relatively free, if you 
feel the need to change that speak to whomever represents you in 
government.  I'm sure if there is a sufficient threat to national 
security or sufficient cash thrown at them, they'll be only too happy to 
oblige.

It strikes me as odd that some can't stand a little off-topicness about 
the war given current times, yet the war itself is ok.  Perhaps it's 
good for business.

Re: non military license for ada

[Frank]

>
> I write this in the ada language group as I see this as a particular
> problem for Ada, and like to use it, but do not wish to help the
> current monkeyman leaders of the tree world.

Hi

There is a discussion group called  comp.software.licensing - perhaps
someone there can give you an advice about "ethical software"?

Frank

Re: non military license for ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <vUiea.3188$ug.2449@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, "chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <U68ea.3072$ug.851@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, "chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> 
>> I am reluctant to believe that the bulk of my fellow Ada fans are
>> so disrespectful of communication protocols.
> 
> excuse me?  Last time I checked the internet was relatively free, if you 
> feel the need to change that speak to whomever represents you in 
> government.

The last time I checked, the Internet was a _cooperative_ activity,
self-governed by reasonable social conventions such as dividing
Usenet into distinct newsgroups according to topic.

It dismays me to see that the Ada community has some of the people
least capable of cooperating with others.

Re: non military license for ada

[Florian Weimer]

sk <noname@myob.com> writes:

> I do not think that this would be acceptable. I think that you can
> no longer legitimately call it the GPL license as provided by the
> FSF.

Hmm, I wasn't talking about the GPL, and you don't have to change the
GPL if you want to change the license of your software.