> At 10:27 4/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
> thats not integration that is using and perfectly fine and
> not even covered by license - disclaimed by clause "Activities
> other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License".
Excellent. Aggregation, bundling, and integration are not
covered then!
> 2-c combined with 2-d-p3.
Again, all of section 2 is in the context of modifying, which
is not the issue at hand. If in doubt, please email license@... ;-)
> >This remains an unsupported claim. Can anyone support it with
> >relevant text, or is Peter chasing a Ghost here?
>
> see above.
Apparently you and I are on opposite sides of a cultural divide here.
I come from a people who know that repeating a claim does not
constitute supporting it. We're talking about legal documents here.
Nothing is more relevant than the text. Anecdotes about a GPL'd
implementation of javax.servlet don't cut it. "Go talk to foo"
doesn't cut it either. If that's all you have to say, it's duly
noted and you can put a lid on it.
So far you just keep repeating a Belief(tm). Honestly, I'm not
surprised that you were flamed.
Is there any non-Peter person that can respond to these issues?
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
