Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1243 gnu.misc.discuss:665
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <4212AD@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 25 Dec 89 22:46:16 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 20

In article <1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes:
>>>You can write your own license based on the GPL.
>>Not without violating the copyright, I can't.
>Did you ask them yet? Nope.
>The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple.

If I can distribute modified copes of the GPL, why would they
specifically state that redistribution of unmodified copies of the
license but that thye must remain unmodified??

Their idea of what is moral with regard to licensing restrictions and
mine differ greatly. Maybe not devils, but thieves...

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
     Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...