From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22007 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 17:52:21 -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 21998 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 17:52:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.dberlin.org) (151.204.251.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 17:52:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by www.dberlin.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080BC10667F2; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB plugin proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > > 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? > > You said his views are legally irrelevant. You did that without cc'ing > him. > He's not a judge. His views are therefore legally irrelevant. Heck, lawyer's views are technically legally irrelevant, since it's the judge who has the final say. --Dan