From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14984 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 05:49:57 -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 14972 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 05:49:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 05:49:55 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA05601; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:48:32 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:49:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Daniel Berlin 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/msg00411.txt.bz2 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. > How did i ruin his reputation? > What have I said that is untrue? Since when ruining a reputation requires telling untrue things? Is that what they teach you in law schools nowadays?