Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Hrm. I'm trying to figure out how you can quote something without reading
>> it.................................................you know, I just can't
>> feature it.
>The front page of lists.debian.org defines certain lists as for
>"Users" and others as for "Developers".
And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or
may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the
listmasters for a reason, you know.
>> Take it as you will. But if you see this as anything other than a repeat
>> of your "party scene" you're a bigger fool than I thought.
>So, who are you, then?
Hopefully the one who's many miles away.
>> Why do you need to know my DL information?
>Your name is a matter of public record. For some reason, you are
Perhaps my name is, but the rest of the information on it is not. Up
until the late eighties, it was actually against federal law to divulge my
DL information, since it contained my SSN (long complicated story
involving the fact that the issuance fee is actually a tax...). When most
states went TO using the SSN on DL's, Idaho went the other way. Nice
aside: at DefCon two-three years ago, they were selling CDs of the entire
Oregon DMV database. They gave away the 3 year old copies. Yes it's
public record, and yes bad guys can read public records as well.
>deeply ashamed either of your name or your activities here, and you
You're putting words into my mouth again. Here's a quarter, why don't you
try your amateur psychotherapy on someone who gives a shit.
>are greatly afraid of having them linked. The situation is comical,
Frankly, my actions haven't been ones that would make me care if they
became public knowlege. I'm this much of an asshole in real life, too.
You really ought to do some more reading before you attribute anonymity
You know, failing to have read a little known author like Pope wouldn't
make a person illiterate or anything...
>because you insist that we should pretend you are behaving like a
>normal human being, all the while, manifestly not doing so.
I'm sorry: what's normal about insisting that someone isn't who they say
they are? ISTR that the issue of my pseudonymity was brought up by you in
some wretched attempt to divert the subject a year or so ago. I have not
denied that I am using a pseudonym, but the plain fact is that
pseudonymity is a LOT more normal than insisting that a name is a
pseudonym and one must know their REAL name. I didn't mention that JG
isn't my real name until you asked.
>> Yeah, but on the three documents you mentioned, if they gave you anything
>> off them, I'd be righteously pissed. In every case above, it's illegal to
>> provide information from them without my permission. You don't have the
>> permission, nor will you get it.
>For *some* of the information. Not for all. Your name is a matter of
Is it? You signed your Census form, right? Would you believe that the
name is immediately stripped off that information because of the Privacy
Act? It's just never entered in the computers. If it's public
information, the privacy act shouldn't apply, no?
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
Who is John Galt? email@example.com