Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:57:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200011291357.IAA24362@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <901vga$93i$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> (marp@0.0.0.0) Subject: Re: Is anyone still actively developing RHIDE? Is the latest version Pavenis's modified 1.4.7.5? References: <901jst$49q$1 AT slb6 DOT atl DOT mindspring DOT net> <200011290111 DOT UAA17230 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <901vga$93i$1 AT nntp9 DOT atl DOT mindspring DOT net> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > > Because it wouldn't be nice, that's why. > > Next logical question: How is it "not nice"? Because we all respect Andris, and we are thankful that he's done so much work on it. If we were to do something with it against his wishes (even if legal), he might choose not to contribute any more, and we'll have annoyed a lot of djgpp users. Legalities have nothing to do with it. > Eli's post suggested to me that if someone were to do so, they would > somehow be violating the GPL license (which RHIDE uses for it's > terms) or violating some rule for distributing files on simtel. No, just violating our moral code. > I'll tell you why I think there's nothing "not nice" about it. Sigh. > Andris received the RHIDE distribution, modified it, With Robert's permission and approval. > My point is this. Asking him if it's okay would be asking him a question > that he has, in effect, already answered. No, asking him if it's *legal* would be redundant. Being polite and respectful is *never* redundant. > As for the rules of simtel, I don't know what they are, There's nothing in the simtel rules about this. All they require is legal redistribution rights and virus protection. Oh, and 8+3 filenames ;)