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-Thread: 103376,71b4c0131a8a22a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ? References: <1182493841.177772.314860@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1182514223.900979@xnews001> <467c0abc$0$6394$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:05:52 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CuhSvQg0oVcQwwKdaUpXGZxRlZE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.101 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1182534957 88.72.230.101 (22 Jun 2007 19:55:57 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16310 Date: 2007-06-22T20:05:52+02:00 List-Id: > Dirk Heinrichs wrote: >> anon wrote: >> >>> L E T T H I S D I E ! ! ! >> Yes, and: >> \|||/ >> (o o) >> |~~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~| >> | Please | >> | don't feed the | >> | TROLL! | >> '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ooo~~' >> |__|__| >> || || >> ooO Ooo > > > Considering that Redmond trolls make a living by spreading > FUD, the c.l.ada archives should have enough information to guide > inquiries to the right places, though. I'm not sure this is a Redmond troll. Live isn't as simple as this. It's certainly someone with a grudge (and he even pretends that he has written GPL software and sued somebody about not keeping to the GPL license condition -- I'm surprised, this certainly did not leave a blip on _my_ RADAR screen). But certainly anon is living in another reality than the rest if us. Concerning "c.l.ada archives should have enough information to guide inquiries" I'm not so sure: The discussion on licensing topics has been somewhat largish and muddled at times (and you and me aren't altogether free of guilt in that since we mixed politics ("how should things be, what is the intention" -- remember those discussions on what the FSF wants?) with the letter of the license ("what written and what would it mean if one had to go to court"). Regards -- Markus