On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 09:56:23AM +0200, moayyad sadi wrote: > > > > Is that some kind of trademark enforcement? The same way the Mozilla > > Foundation does not allow a changed Firefox to be called Firefox? > > > > Understood this way, I would agree with you. > > > > > In the article of RMS (founder of GNU) he published some articles > that are not to be modified, because they were his own ideas > you can say RMS said so and so if he did not > > We muslims have something more worthy of being taken care of its authenticity > it's our free culture > our free culture is supposed to be freely copied, redistributed and developed > it was even before FSF, > > I'll give you an extreme example, some scholars did publish a compilations > of inauthentic hadiths (sayings of prophet Muhammad) > so even inauthentic Hadiths are allowed to be redistributed > for example Imam Al-Albani published a book called > السلسلة الضعيفة أو صعيف الجامع > "The inauthentic series or inauthentic compilation" > > my idea, Imagine that some one develop his own version of GnuPG > that tells you that the signature is valid while it's not > > so it's not about the title or the trademark > it's about the false impression given to the user > my case to protect people from being victims of fraud > which could be legal because of some license issue You can't call it GPG then. I definitely don't get the whole idea or what's behind it. -- GPG-Key: 0xA3FD0DF7 - 9F73 032E EAC9 F7AD 951F 280E CB66 8E29 A3FD 0DF7 Debian User and Developer. Homepage: www.foolab.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature