🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GUMBY.90Apr18111525@Cygnus.COM> gumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) writes:
>This is a straw man.  The license agreement doesn't cover (doesn't
>even try to cover) compiling code and more than editing a document with
>emacs would unclassify it.
--------
	The case I talked about covered c++.  I was under the impression that
if you used the standard c++ libary from gnu then the rest of your
code is covered.  Or, for instance, if you have written an intelligent
front end that normally uses yacc (and thereby automatically includes
AT&T source code), and then you switch to the gnu equiv, you again
automatically are covered by the gnu agreement to publish code --
in this case, as I mentioned, someone else's code.
	There was no explicit copying of source code or explicit use
of it.  By merely compiling and linking with g++, it seems, you are
covered by the gnu agreement.  Is this not true?

>What I would like to see is the attribution of the Partnership for a
>DFA quotation.
------
	Sent article via email, since that is not really a topic
suitable for this newsgroup.

-wat-
--
***
    We felt the effects of herb were so dangerous that it was better
    to lie to the american public to save them rather than tell them
    the truth -- Partnership for a Drug Free America