Re: failure notice @ email@example.com
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:07:09AM -0000, MAILER-DAEMON@peff.net wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at peff.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> You sent mail to a mailbox which is used only for receiving
> mailing list postings.
> If you did this because you are sending unsolicited bulk
> email, please don't. I don't want to read it.
> If you did this because you are CC'ing me on a list email,
> please don't. I'll just end up with two copies of your
> If you did this because you are responding privately to my
> list comments, please don't. The list is a public forum, and
> others may benefit from our discussion:
> If you really do want to get in touch with me via private
> email, please send mail to me directly at:
Posting mail to public mailing lists with a deliberately invalid reply
address, and making people jump through hoops for the privilege of
mailing you, is a severe breach of basic etiquette. Please don't do
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Received: (qmail 5475 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2005 02:07:09 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO c-65-96-98-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) (220.127.116.11)
> by 0 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2005 02:07:09 -0000
> Received: by c-65-96-98-23.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
> id CF13D100AA9BC; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:07:08 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <email@example.com>
> To: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
> Message-ID: <20050723020708.GR25286@zewt.org>
> References: <[🔎] E1Dw6qg-0008JIemail@example.com> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] E1Dw77Y-0002EWemail@example.com> <[🔎] E1Dw77Y-0002EWfirstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 20050723001000.GO25286@zewt.org> <[🔎] E1Dw7wT-0000jCemail@example.com> <[🔎] E1Dw7wT-0000jCfirstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 20050723005024.GP25286@zewt.org> <[🔎] E1Dw8ur-0001JZemail@example.com> <[🔎] 20050723020549.GA27507@coredump.intra.peff.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050723020549.GA27507@coredump.intra.peff.net>
> Mail-Copies-To: nobody
> X-No-CC: Branden subscribes to this list; do not CC him on replies.
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:49PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> > > without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> > > been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> > > work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the
> > > same freedoms to our users.
> > >
> > > How is one of these free and the other non-free?
> > Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly
> > language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program
> > directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed
> > products contain the same amount of information about how they work.
> > How is one of these free and the other non-free?
> Get out of my head!