From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T10:01:31+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:46:15AM +0900, Samuel Tesla wrote:

> To pre-emptively clarify.  Of course you can remove the GPL'd code
> from your own, but that's an uninteresting case here.  We're only
> interested in the case where the GPL'd code *IS* included.

Well... what I am saying is that this case is actually quite important in 
the fact that it is an alternative.  It might not be convenient, or 
appealing, but the fact that an alternative exists is important to the 
issue of whether you are being forced to do something.

> So in the [interesting] situation where I actually *would* include the
> code, I'm stuck with the GPL.
> 
> I hope that clarifies what everybody else has been telling you,
> Daniel.

I do not need clarification on what everybody has been telling me.  You 
are being condescending and I really do not appreciate that.  You do not 
know the contents of the GPL better than I do.  I have not been 
condescending towards you.  I have not, at any point, assumed that you 
were not familiar with the content of the GPL.  Please avoid personal 
offence since it does nothing to prove your point, and it does a lot to 
triger flame wars.


I wish that you would please consider the point that I am making.  I do 
not doubt your understanding of the GPL.  I am arguing that the fact that 
you have the choice not to GPL your code even after you have included GPL 
code into your own is an important point.  I am arguing that this ability 
makes a big difference.


- -- 
Daniel Carrera         | OpenPGP fingerprint:
Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
UMD  (301) 405-5137    | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (SunOS)

iD8DBQE/DgxlnxE8DWHf+OcRAl0rAJ9yJzLeHrZvgnbfbB8JV8g9IajecgCgoZ/O
iH/AXHr6cmSioWbN1V4Dplk=
=cC/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----