Bad signature!! [was: Re: LICENSES]
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message and what the contents were when it was signed? Thanks. Zephaniah E, Hull. On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 03:35:18PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.) That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND Troll Tech release Qt under the GPL. I wanted to take a large cluebat to their heads for the reasons you cite above. i agree. people who bash Troll over Qt are missing the point. Worse, they are clouding the issue. IMO, Troll Tech are beyond reproach. they wrote a good library, and they allow people to use it for free in certain circumstances. while i would be happy to see it under an Open Source-compatible license, nobody has any right to demand that they do anythingthat's like demanding caviar from a good neighbour when they give you a sandwich. the only right you have here is to choose to accept their generosity or choose not to accept it. I personally choose not to accept it (the license isn't compatible with what i want to do with free software...also, I don't like C++ :), but i'm grateful for the offer all the same. craig -- craig sanders pgpjRLGQaq2p0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bad signature!! [was: Re: LICENSES]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message and what the contents were when it was signed? i wrote the message, but i didn't sign it. i don't normally sign my email. i'll sign this one though :-) craig - -- craig sanders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNh8KX9U9fGIP1gpVAQEDWwgAhhOikd0x7q584AXLHPxtmZnRCAlSmFiz 0Hkr0p1EmtZcKtL3Y9BenccWswCizG+tYGXMHw99Z0txWibm4NGv3ng/wSrQpRHZ A8xoVJKsbJ4BXpda+OlzWYs2ItXKykdYTgLDVxv2tYbjiE9MbblvxnC6qSB/aBWQ Q40YiLJ+l9cuE/BFdbiKqfqcCNCrmw6IYgIcb08BUTxDwAJCiWkvFLxOGJmqVuI/ e5EO3wg3Kby/xKOi0H0SWA8xntj44O8J3FKBT4AykYSKDZ9S0ADcrIwT0+OoRmPu zoQ9dDOSJVpWdUBfUU+o9HII9WbJb+mNYUm9S+BQMWduLHOPwFvaCw== =YFSu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bad signature!! [was: Re: LICENSES]
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Zed Pobre wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:36:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message and what the contents were when it was signed? Craig Sanders does not routinely sign his mail. Joseph Carter does. Upon closer examination, one will find that the PGP/MIME signature from Joseph Carter's previous message got attached to Craig Sanders' reply (an impressive message quoting feat, albeit a stupid one... Craig, what are you using for a mailreader?!). pine 4.05 at the moment. it has some improvements over pine 3.96 but is still a bit buggy. also, i have pine configured so that it includes attachements by default...it must have picked up Joseph's signature as a mime attachement and included it, and i forgot to delete it from the Attachment: header. craig -- craig sanders
