Strategy (was Re: Improving copyright)

Rui Miguel Seabra rms at
Sun May 16 16:07:39 UTC 2004

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 17:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
> I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. 
> Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar 
> complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period 
> stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux 
> without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, 
> which is why I didn't write it first time.

I call your bluff. How do you think Windows manages to do it? By

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list