[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:00:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted
> > in a non-free way is categorically non-free.
> No.
> http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html

You can't just say "no".  When you find people don't understand your
position, either explain your position more clearly, or stop wasting
our time.

Anyhow, you've made it blindingly clear that you have nothing of real
substance to offer to this list; anything you might have to offer is
deafened by your continual snide derision, your complete (and obviously
entirely deliberate) inability to discuss anything at all civilly.  Even
the subject of a certain Drinking Game a while back has a much better
track record than you lately.  *plonk*

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: