On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:55:36 +0800 Didier Casse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/05, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As raster said, this is an explanation, not a discussion. The
> > decision was made (and hashed out at length) a very long time ago,
> > and it isn't under
On 10/14/05, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As raster said, this is an explanation, not a discussion. The
> decision was made (and hashed out at length) a very long time ago, and
> it isn't under review. Been there, done that, moved on. :-)
>
> Michael
I would suggest to add th
On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 06:10:31 (-0400),
Jose O Gonzalez wrote:
> All of this appears reasonable, and yet there are arguments that
> are also reasonable to the effect that license XYZ is instead a 'better'
> way to go.
> Rather than agonize over attempting to dissect the fine p
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:10:31 -0400 Jose O Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:58:22 +0900 Carsten writes:
> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:07:33 +1000 Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > > It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in
> > o
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:58:22 +0900 Carsten writes:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:07:33 +1000 Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> babbled:
>
> > It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in
> on this
> > one :)
> >
> > I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment
> st
On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 01:17:02 (-0400),
Jose O Gonzalez wrote:
> The reality is that *any* recourse to a license, even a copyright,
> is taking a political stance - it is seeking protection through the
> legal framework via some scheme.
>
> To brand one such scheme as political but anoth
