From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13765 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 20:19:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13744 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 20:19:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.dberlin.org) (151.204.251.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 20:19:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by www.dberlin.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2254510667EA; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: ssmoser@us.ibm.com, , Subject: Re: GDB plugin proposal In-Reply-To: <2593-Tue23Apr2002222418+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:28:00 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Daniel Berlin > > > > RMS's viewpoint isn't legally relevant. He may be right. He may be wrong. > > He claims he's right, but that doesn't make it so. > > He'd *like* to be right, but that also doesn't make it so. > > Certainly, anything related to law that RMS spouts should be taken with a > > *large* grain of salt. > > I think this is terribly unfair, and shouldn't have been sent except > perhaps in private email. Errr, how is it unfair? He's not a lawyer. I simply said that what he says related to law should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. > If you are going to ruin someone's > reputation in public, at least CC him so he would be able to defend > himself. Ruin someone's reputation? How did i ruin his reputation? What have I said that is untrue? >