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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-21 10:48:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr14.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community References: <5ee5b646.0204210759.95e7c2a@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.115.105.248 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com 1019411222 ST000 67.115.105.248 (Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:47:02 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:47:02 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJONAJUMB_LY@BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^JWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:47:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22866 Date: 2002-04-21T17:47:02+00:00 List-Id: > Tom, you certainly have a motive to argue against the Where I come from that's called "resorting to ad hominem argument" and it's recognized that it has nothing to do with the merits of a case. > significantly restricts what I can do with GPLed > software, in a way that other licenses The original statement was: > The GMGPL is quite different from the GPL. The GPL significantly >restricts what I can do with GPLed software, in a way that other licenses So your defense of the GPL on the basis of the lessened restrictions in the GMPL amounts to quoting out of context. That may be OK in propaganda, but it's recognized as inimical to exploring the merits of a case. I'm not interested in a propaganda battle. If you are not interested in a clear exploration of the merits of the case, then we have nothing to discuss.