From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 5 06:18:05 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B88A16A41A for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:18:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from askbill@conducive.net) Received: from conducive.net (conducive.net [203.194.153.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E4213C465 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:18:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from askbill@conducive.net) Received: from cm218-253-81-177.hkcable.com.hk ([218.253.81.177]:60081 helo=pb.local) by conducive.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IdgVg-0002BZ-Fd for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:18:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4705D71C.50208@conducive.net> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:18:04 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <4705CA47.9090101@delphij.net> <4705D2D4.6000902@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: viral license free fork of freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:18:05 -0000 Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On 10/5/07, 韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote: >> Aryeh Friedman wrote: >> >> *snip* >> >>> I have other reasons and goals then "I don't like the license" >>> specifically if I was going to start building an os under a SIW >>> license (http://www.flosoft-systems.com/miai/index.php and >>> http://www.flosoft-systems.com/blogs/aryeh/index.php [first three >>> enteries]) >> I'm certainly no paragon of typing or spelling accuracy myself, but I hope you >> won't be offended if I suggest taking a *spell checker* to both of those > > I thought they where basically well proof read... oh well... will go > through them again (particularly the second one) One thing professional writers learn very early (1960's): NO ONE can proofread their own work well. We 'see' what we *intended* to say - not what we actually typed. Spell-checkers are objective. Even when dead-wrong, they draw your eye to possible anomalies. ...and still miss a few. Such as the time a VP of Sales called me to whine that he didn't have a sister.... ??? One of my staff had published the new Sales Compensation Plan - having spell-checked 'blind'. Thereby turning 'incent', 'incentive', incentivize' to 'incest' ... and derivatives. Compilers are even less discriminate, BTW. ;-) Bill