Re: News about the macro archive

[Tom Howard]

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

Hi Peter,

> I guess this is the core of the problem, this shows where we
> really disagree. I think it's perfectly irrelevant whether a
> file has a verbose license statement or not. Personally, I
> think it's insane to say "I don't give a shit what you do
> with this software", and then to insert lines of lines of
> redundant disclaimers that say "Yeah, I really don't care
> what you do with this software. And under no circumstances
> must you remove this statement so that everybody knows I
> don't care. Go figure."
> 
> I think it's contradictory.
> 
> I remember the times when thousands of programs where shared
> and developed around the planet and all that anyone ever
> cared about legalese was "This is in the public domain." and
> that was it. And this is how the archive was run for the
> last six years. No file ever had a license disclaimer, but
> that didn't keep people from submitting 300+ macros to it.
> And it didn't keep any of you guys from contributing either.
> 
> That's why I wonder what all the fuzz is about.

Go ask Stallman what the fuss is about.  I for one was very taken aback
when I noticed that my submissions had their copyright information
stripped (I should have mentioned it at the time).  I would very much
like it back and I would like to be able to place a verbose all
permissive licence within them as well.  Yes it's your archive, but
those are my macros and I don't understand what the big fuss is about
regarding the formatting of the docs.

Cheers,

- --
Tom Howard

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x433B299A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB9YR0w1G4ZUM7KZoRAl6GAJ9buKhxZwtUrjx/f6i+RbPpYhcUygCgpvgZ
kcacZbSZ0e2GcJ4v+3EGd9o=
=DudR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tomhoward.vcf
Description: Vcard