Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!decwrl!ucbvax!HANKEL.RUTGERS.EDU!bbs
From: bbs@HANKEL.RUTGERS.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: I guess I _didn't_ do that!
Message-ID: <8912170357.AA13438@hankel.rutgers.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 89 03:57:02 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 29

Hi y'all.

I don't remember who claimed I broke the rules
of posting a hack-up of GNU getopt, but the only
rule I broke, it seems to me, on third look, is
to put the hacking notice before the GNU copyright
notice and not after it.  I need not do more than
is required.  Specifically, I need not include one
of the longer-winded speeches.

Furthermore, all instructions as to what to do with
the code were included.  Where one may be fooled is
in thinking it would be in a separate file.  It isn't.
Since all I distributed was getopt, I found a notice
_within the source file_ satisfactory.  The rest was readme's
and makefiles, not code.

So I _didn't_ goof, except in the inconsequential way
given above.

Please do not accuse one of breaking the GNU agreement
just because he complied in a way you didn't expect.


-- 
Barry Schwartz, Chief SAPsucker                  bbs@cdspr.rutgers.edu
Grad Student, Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engg.     bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University College of Engg.              bbs@hankel.rutgers.edu
Piscataway, NJ 08854    U.S.A.                   rutgers!cdspr!bbs