🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>the FSF; on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.

I know, this is the third or fourth article in this thread in which I'm
saying the same thing, but then I'm still not anywhere near Michael's
volume of repetitive rhetoric, so here goes...

READ THE BLOODY LICENSE!

"The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
anyone or anything.  Only the redistribution of GNU places you under
legal obligations to the copyright holder, the FSF.

>TOB:
>>In any case, the CopyLeft license can be easily obtained and read (As I'm
>>sure you have), so I can't believe anyone is truly misled.
>
>Consider a career as a copywriter; you have the right approach.  On
>second thought, even that profession does not call for a small print
>explanation that the "Care Free" menstrual pads will not *really* live
>up to the insouciantly autarchic implications of their trade name.

The above paragraph is apparently devoid of semantic content.  Equally
apparent is that either Michael did not in fact read the GNU Public
License, or he first translated it into a similarly content-free 
intermediate representation.

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA