On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 16:30 -0500, Kurt Wall wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:02:17PM -0700, Craig White wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 14:47 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > > > But my point is that _if_ the Novell agreement is necessary > > > for distribution, then GPL distribution is already illegal > > > for everybody, not just Novell. > > ---- > > of course your point relies upon presumptive guilt...which as I > > understand it is part and parcel of a Catholic upbringing but clearly at > > odds with the expectations of open source software users. > > Was the anti-Catholic crack really necessary? And, FTR, even among > Christians, Catholics hardly have a lock on guilt. > > You are, of course, correct in the main point: the assumption in the > original comment that distribution of _something_ violates some patent. ---- it wasn't necessarily a crack but a reference to: - a culturally common reference - illustrative of the point that we all should be able to relate to...that it is absurd to pre-suppose guilt. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone and neither Catholics nor the generic term of Christians have a lock on guilt...I know this this to be true...I had a Jewish mother. ;-) Craig
