discuss: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
From:
Tor Slettnes ####@####.####
Date:
19 Oct 2004 20:38:43 -0000
Message-Id: <E7F976BD-220E-11D9-B617-0030656CF512@slett.net>
Apologies for jumping into the middle of and thereby prolonging this
private (or at least should-be private) "discussion" -- I hope I'm not
starting a bar fight. :-}
On Oct 19, 2004, at 01:20, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>> I did know about this but didn't think it worth the effort to mention
>> it. The point is that now apache-ssl is OK for commercial use and the
>> HOWTO needs updating.
>
> {amused}
> Was it you who said it was "_likely_ wrong", or was it perhaps some
> other David Lawyer ####@####.#### who said that?
Now, now, no need to be snide/nasty.
In its original context, I think you can easily give David the benefit
of the doubt:
>>> I mean putting the old version in "unmaintained". It seems to be
>>> obsolete. I searched it for "certificate" and got nothing. I think
>>> it is likely wrong when it says that one can't use apache-ssl for
>>> commercial uses. I think that much (or even most) of the content is
>>> only of historical interest.
Both before and after, you have words like "obsolete" and "historical
interest". Already it is quite clear to me (and I suspect to most)
that when David said "likely wrong" in this context, he does not mean
to say that it was always so.
> One of these days, you really should consider learning something about
> licensing and copyright law.
Based on this message?
I don't know how well David is versed in copyright law (or for that
matter, how much he cares to know -- we all have different interests,
after all). In his message, however, he said nothing inaccurate. For
that matter, he did not make any definite claims one way or the other.
I fail to see where your pompous attitude would come from, unless of
course you are mixing in some residual antagonism from prior
discussions.
