Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
> > What if the bad guys already made a great deal of > money and then > > they declare themselves bankrupt? > > Then what? What does this have to do with the GPL? That the GPL is very hard to enforce. In the end the bad guys just rip the very authors that published their work using the GPL. The bad guys will get away with a lot of sh*t and the law(s) that protected the original authors and ensured that they got the license followed is very hard to apply. Look at the GPL violations page posted before. > > > They have already taken advantage of the free code > available and > > make their own proprietary programs and not give > anything bad. > > Users who accepted these restrictions were harmed, indeed. > Society > missed an opportunity to get their contributions, indeed. > That's > quite unfortunate, indeed, but there's nothing special > about the GPL > in this situation. > > > This is very true but unfortunate. Businesses and > developers need > > something that will protect them and make the abusers > pay. > > How about users conscious of the importance of freedom? > > Then abusers wouldn't even make the money in the first > place. If they do, who is going to stop them, just look at the ichess project taking from the other project. The case is still pending :( > > But to this end people need to learn about freedom, and why > they > should care about it. That's why it is so important > that you and > everyone help spread these ideas. Just by using the term > GNU/Linux, > you'll get several opportunities to talk about it and > spread > awareness. > > -- I do not need to do it, it has been done already by GNU themselves [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o GNU/Linux Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> >> Nothing is said that has not been said before. > >> Terence > >> Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) > >> > >> -- > > > > +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) > > > > All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that > good men do nothing > > this ain't no freakn war. you ain't gonna get no > freakn nobel prize. It is a war. A war between the FSF who want the GNU part attached to Linux ==> GNU/Linux like Debian uses. This has been discussed to death and no side wants to give up If you want to see, this is a continuation from over here http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy > and you ain't winning the hearts and minds of anyone. > shit, if you > were any more annoying than any of the others i'd > switch sides for > spite. you are free to choose the side you want. You are free to decide. You are in agreement with one of the following: A. You agree to call the system simply Linux like many have done before B. You agree to attach the term GNU/Linux because it will boost the egos of people in the FSF and make RMS get a good nights sleep :) C. You plainly do not give a DaMN and are very happy to run this great software no matter what it is called :) D. None of the above > all of you make good poster childs for $$ software. > all you > kids are doing is pollutin the list. and you don't > even know it or > care. Sure we care. We want our voices to be be heard and not just accept what they say and move on. Would you accept if I told you that the sky was green instead of blue and accept it as fact? > all you done was turn the list inot a private > soapbox. What is a soapbox? I am thinking you mean a soap opera, or somthing along those lines. Maybe this discussion would be better on Jerry Springer :) > > i stuck around here cause some thought this would die and It will eventually die, but this thread started from an true question, "Why is Fedora not a free GNU/Linux distro?", and it has sparked lots of flames across the world. With both camps and a third group remaining neutral not participating and "filtering all this BS out". They have a passion about the side that they are on and self satisfaction and self accomplishment. > > some said > ubuntu was just as terrible. at least ubuntu has its > sounder list and > people take crap like this over there. Crap makes it way everywhere. It is very hard to get rid off and this silly arguments and others will make their way to the list. > karl may be a moron > but i end > up feeling sorry for him. Why feel sorry for anyone. When you get to be his age, people will feel sorry for you. You should be proud of who you are and not feel sorry for anyone. > > -- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Of course there is. If you want to help, call it GNU/Linux, or >> GNU+Linux. That's all we ask for. > What will I gain if I do that? Do I get a prize? Feeling good and making for a better world, is there a better prize than that? :-) > I would do it for you, but not for RMS :( > Is that fair? Sure. It doesn't matter whom you do it for. That's not important at all. The important thing is to spread awareness about freedom. > I think that the FSF is not being fair to Fedora as well, when the > original question was asked, why was not Fedora a free GNU/Linux OS? Why isn't the FSF being fair? Fedora actively refuses to take steps that would make it a 100% Free distribution, and takes steps away from that. How could the FSF recommend and endorse this kind of behavior? > gnewSense, BLAG and others did make it Sure, and they do take the steps needed. It's not just empty promises and reluctance and delays and steps back to balance freedom with the alleged needs of users not interested in freedom, it's hard work to put freedom first and try their best to make sure people get what they expect when they go after a 100% Free distro. Today, with Fedora, that's just impossible, and by Fedora's own decisions. > Since Fedora is not a truly free GNU/Linux Distribution, why shall I > call it Fedora GNU/Linux? Because it *is* GNU/Linux, even though it has non-Free Software added to it. > Where is the script that I shall run to make my system a GNU/Linux system? You don't need to run any script to do so, it already is a GNU/Linux system. In order to make it a Linux system, you'd have to run something along the lines of this script (do NOT run it unless you really know what you're doing ;-) #! /bin/sh umount /boot rm -rf / :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if the bad guys already made a great deal of money and then > they declare themselves bankrupt? Then what? What does this have to do with the GPL? > They have already taken advantage of the free code available and > make their own proprietary programs and not give anything bad. Users who accepted these restrictions were harmed, indeed. Society missed an opportunity to get their contributions, indeed. That's quite unfortunate, indeed, but there's nothing special about the GPL in this situation. > This is very true but unfortunate. Businesses and developers need > something that will protect them and make the abusers pay. How about users conscious of the importance of freedom? Then abusers wouldn't even make the money in the first place. But to this end people need to learn about freedom, and why they should care about it. That's why it is so important that you and everyone help spread these ideas. Just by using the term GNU/Linux, you'll get several opportunities to talk about it and spread awareness. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
TL: > Okay, right now I don't see any printer on my laptop which is on the same LAN > with the printer server. The printer server runs RHEL 4, and it's set to > share its printer and allow anyone to use it. No firewall between these > machine inside the LAN. Could it be because the print server runs older > CUPS ? I wouldn't expect that to be a problem. I've put printers on Fedora Core 4, and CentOS 4 & 5 servers (which are virtually the same as RHEL), and the Fedora (7 to 9) clients all found those printers automatically. What OS are your clients running, and can you post the server's and client's /etc/cups/cupsd.conf and /etc/cups/printers.conf files? Another thing that springs to mind is whether you're using any sort of authentication or limits on the CUPS server. > I have several printer at work which is accessible from the internet > (HP Jet Direct). Suppose I have several machines at home that I want > to configure so that I can print there, do I have to do it one at > a time ? You will need manual configuring to print to servers that aren't on the same LAN. Print server discovery only works on the same network. NB: I don't know whether it'll work when using a virtual private network to join together two separate networks (e.g. work and home). That might well depend on how you do it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 28, 2008, Ed Greshko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, goodieyet another subject to trash. Can't you "people" just > stick to one lousy thread? Netiquette recommends that the subject be changed when the topic of the conversation does. Knowledge of netiquette is probably the first thing that any wannabe-moderator should display. Posting the same useless and off-topic message to 3 different threads is a clear demonstration of unsuitability. Do you actually expect us to abide by netiquette just because you're not interested in some topics that you probably can't even define? And since you haven't even read the discussion after you kill-filed it, you couldn't even refer to what it is that disturbs you in it any more? What if someone were to demand all people who post say technical questions to use the same subject line, so that it's easier for us Fedora users who're not that interested in technical discussions to filter them out more easily? Would that work for you? I thought so. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nothing is said that has not been said before. >> Terence >> Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) >> >> -- > > +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) > > All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing this ain't no freakn war. you ain't gonna get no freakn nobel prize. and you ain't winning the hearts and minds of anyone. shit, if you were any more annoying than any of the others i'd switch sides for spite. all of you make good poster childs for $$ software. all you kids are doing is pollutin the list. and you don't even know it or care. all you done was turn the list inot a private soapbox. i stuck around here cause some thought this would die and some said ubuntu was just as terrible. at least ubuntu has its sounder list and people take crap like this over there. karl may be a moron but i end up feeling sorry for him. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You only have to agree to the GPL requirements if you need the > permissions for modification and distribution the GPL grants. Who forfeited the opportunity to distribute gnothing under the GPL by violating the license, then? Under your theory that the GPL imposes restrictions on the code licensed under it, someone must have, because the author only released lib.c as part of a GPL program, and some licensee managed to somehow escape what you call the restrictions of the GPL. At the very least, this shows that your allegations about the impossibility of using code released as part of GPLed programs under their former licenses was false. Now it remains for you to realize that, even if you accept the GPL, your faulty assumption remains incorrect. You'll find the answers by asking your lawyer. >> Show me. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards: the case you >> cited is one of GPLed library and derived program distributed under an >> incompatible license. > The main work was released in source and might have been GPL'd or > dual licensed but could not because of this library dependency. Distributed along with the main work, right? > And because gmp was under GPL at the time See? The work was derived from a GPL library. You got it backwards. > It was impossible to re-implement the needed functions from RSAREF > because of the patent Why couldn't that implementation be GPLed? And why couldn't it just be left out of the main work? > Now for the really strange part: no one ever actually used the fgmp > library because gmp performed better. However, since it existed and > it was the linking user's choice which to use, it was no longer > possible to claim that the main work was derived from the gmp > library. A "beautiful" case of circumvention of the spirit of the GPL and of copyleft by legal technicalities. Way to go! NOT -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify. Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally and by design. It is the GPL that was designed to conflict with others, including the original BSD. Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a difference? Your wording is about providing rights. The GPL wording is about restricting all derivatives to only exactly its own terms. I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up. If you mean where you said one customer would pay for it all, that's not a plan, it's a fairy tale. In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one, please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-) I think you are the one who forgot I wanted the plan for something that a single customer could not afford. Or something that would require you to have a team of programmers to complete. And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly free, alternative to the monopoly product. And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water? OS X is derived from BSD work, and is an excellent example of what can be accomplished. But Apple can get by with a somewhat limited driver set and they aren't really in the OS business. While BSD was fighting the legal battle that made free unix-like systems possible, Linux stole most of the development work, trapping the contributions with GPL-restrictions and making them unusable for anything else. So now the widest base of drivers is trapped by those restrictions. If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms eliminate incentives to creativity. I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do. FUD-spreaders see free software as competition. I'm not a FUD-spreader or a software distributer. I want more and better software as a user and potential customer - and I want it to be available to everyone else as well. Available and affordable software is a much more significant goal than free software. The GPL restrictions prevent many ways that existing software could be improved. Next on their list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and 'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs organization and G8. I don't care what is on anyone else's list. I want to see free software in use instead of losing an all-or-nothing battle as it has continued to do for decades. No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some imaginary first customer that you make up. On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else has to share the cost? Who made it up, again? If you believe the GPL leaves some business plan possible to fund the creation of a large new work, please explain it. If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover part of their costs. Why would they? Because they can. And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in *their* interest to recover those costs now. Not gonna happen. I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own risk. Just like any other kind of software development. No, you made up an imaginary customer that would do something irrational. And it is nothing like ordinary software development where you can target a price that large numbers of customers can/will pay. It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40% is out of services, including software development. There is no similarity at all. Most complex software would not exist without a workable plan to recover development costs. There are a few notable exceptions to this in the free software world but they aren't repeatable. Sure, this does make a difference for those who bel
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
Hello, On Sunday 27 July 2008 11:59:07 pm Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 17:31 -0400, TechList wrote: > > Right now there are two situation. One situation, is that I have 1 > > machine that acts as a print server with the printer physically connected > > to it (e.g via USB port). Say I have 5 other computers on the LAN, I have > > to configure printer on each of those 5 computer to use the same print > > server, right ? How do I avoid doing "system-config-printer" five times > > on those machine ? > > As Aaron said, once a CUPS server is configured to print to that > printer, all other CUPS clients will use it automatically. The only > configuration you should have to do, if you want and need to, is pick a > default printer if you have more than one available. Okay, right now I don't see any printer on my laptop which is on the same LAN with the printer server. The printer server runs RHEL 4, and it's set to share its printer and allow anyone to use it. No firewall between these machine inside the LAN. Could it be because the print server runs older CUPS ? > > If you manually configure clients, you may disrupt the automatic > feature. I haven't done manual configuration for a long time, but in > the past it'd stop it automatic printer finding, completely. I think > that, more recently, it just adds manually configured printers to the > discovered ones. My question is still valid. I have several printer at work which is accessible from the internet (HP Jet Direct). Suppose I have several machines at home that I want to configure so that I can print there, do I have to do it one at a time ? Thanks for the responds. TL -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Can I get a word in edgewise here, puhlease?
Greetings; With the conversion to HDTV in our local market now underway, I need to be able to tell xine what channels there are. Unforch, the dvbscan -fx -o .xine/channels.conf doesn't regenerate the file with the new 8VSB signals that have come online in the last week. Does anyone know how to make that work, or, how to change channels in the xine front end? I can't find a channel up/down function in its gui. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Just weigh your own hurt against the hurt of all the others, and then do what's best. -- Lovers and Other Strangers -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two source files: lib.c and main.c. [...] John A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c in any other way. [...] Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD license. No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes GPL-encumbered parts. And yet in this same e-mail you were claiming that the GPL would somehow deprive people of the additional permissions granted by the mBSD header, because of a misreading of section 2 that, per what you say above, you don't really believe. You only have to agree to the GPL requirements if you need the permissions for modification and distribution the GPL grants. If you don't agree, you aren't bound by its term. If you've received a work containing some GPL-only and some dual-licensed parts and have no need to distribute the GPL-only parts you might ignore the GPL, pick out a dual-licensed piece, and build/distribute a work containing it that the GPL restrictions would prohibit. However, if you also modify or redistribute the GPL-only parts of that work you must accept the GPL terms to do so. Then there is no reading of the GPL that could avoid the conclusion that those terms require you to apply the GPL to all parts of any derived works, no exceptions, or you don't have permission to copy/modify any. And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on a non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are unique and no GPL-compatible implementation exists. Show me. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards: the case you cited is one of GPLed library and derived program distributed under an incompatible license. We're talking about GPLed sources derived from non-GPLed libraries. The actual problem in that case was with a different library, RSAREF, covered by the now-expired RSA patent. It was considered 'munitions' at the time and was export-restricted and not under the GPL. The main work was released in source and might have been GPL'd or dual licensed but could not because of this library dependency. And because gmp was under GPL at the time (later changed to LGPL, probably because of the bad publicity from interfering with free source distribution) it could not be used with the non-gpl'd main program. It was impossible to re-implement the needed functions from RSAREF because of the patent, so the only solution was to re-write a functional clone of gmp called fgmp, eliminating the GPL problem. Now for the really strange part: no one ever actually used the fgmp library because gmp performed better. However, since it existed and it was the linking user's choice which to use, it was no longer possible to claim that the main work was derived from the gmp library. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Older machine, Install-DVD doesnt boot
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 22:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Here's my problem: > > I've got an older pc (Asus Cusi-M) > with Celeron(1100MHz), > 500MB RAM. > As I tried to boot the installation-dvd (which works with nearly every > other distribution, e.g.ubuntu does and is installed) it hanging > directly after starting isolinux. it shows me a boot> prompt and wants > to know the kernels name. It also says for normal installation, I only > need to hit return to boot, but nothing happens. not frozen but always > asking-a-new about the kernel stuff. Did you try to install using text install? That's usually the safe way to go when installing to older machines. I installed CentOS to "Mom's Machine", an older P3 with crap for a video card and the darn thing installed using graphical mode, so I was pleasantly surprised! FC7 wouldn't make the same trip though. Best not to top post in these parts! Thanks, Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Antonio Olivares wrote: There is not much we can do to help. Of course there is. If you want to help, call it GNU/Linux, or GNU+Linux. That's all we ask for. What will I gain if I do that? Do I get a prize? You've joined a political movement - you should at least get a button. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to > do whatever you want > > with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and > have calves, the > > calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. > This is what the > > GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk > your cow. Remember > > the cow is licensed under the GPL. > > It's a huge mistake to create analogies between > information and property. > > If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It > would never > run out. That's the way information works: you copy it > and the original > is left intact. > > Property doesn't work like that. If you milk the cow, > then the cow will > need time to make more milk. I can't go and milk the > cow immediately > after you. > > Analogies comparing property and information are misleading > because of > the fundamental difference between the two. Can we please > not continue > to compare software and property? Agree :) > > > I would see real life examples like a teacher and a > student. A > > teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in > mathematics. > > That student learns and goes to higher and higher > levels eventually > > earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school > teacher, but was > > the teacher of the student. The student comes up with > a very famous > > equation or proves a Theorem that has never been > proven before. If > > the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his > teachers > > including the one that taught him in high school. The > student proved > > the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the > teachers that > > he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote > the Theorem > > also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL > umbrella :) Is that > > any justice to the student, who worked all the way up > and did his/her > > homework? > > The GPL isn't about credit, it's about distribution > and rights. Since > you're talking about knowledge here, it's a > somewhat better analogy than > the cow. :) > > If the teacher had given the student his knowledge under > terms similar > to the GPL, then that would not allow the teacher to claim > that he wrote > the student's theorem. It wouldn't even ensure > that the teacher could > later use the student's theorem to teach others > (that'd be more like the > AGPL). What it would ensure is that however the student > applied the > theorem, he would have to describe the theorem itself and > all of the > mathematical underpinnings that support it to the people to > whom he > distributes his work. He can charge money for his services > if he > chooses, but he can not hide the manner in which his work > functions, and > he can not forbid anyone from discussing his theorem once > they've > learned of it. > > So, given that, do you think it's a good thing to > forbid people from > discussing the theorem that the student discovered? If so, > why? > > -- No it is not a good thing to forbid people from discussing the theorem! The theorem is important and knowledge is to be shared. The teacher should not attach his name in the student's theorem. The theorem will be known as the Teacher/Student's Theorem. This would be a good case, if the teacher and the students worked jointly on the project. I have seen many cases, in which a person does all the dirty work, and another guy types it up (in tex/latex) and attaches his name and has the paper published. This is not fair to the guy who did all the dirty work, but since the other guy can type it, and is famous for publishing it is a win-win situation. In mathematics, when mathematicians create papers, they use previous works, they have to cite the authors of the previous work. Of course there are no licenses, but like Alexandre mentions, plagarism is possible. While sometimes, you can find an equation over where you are at, and I can find a similar equation or one equivalent to yours, both independently. The work cannot be exlusively yours, unless you publish your work before I do. Then you beat me to it and deserve all the honors :) Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >>> Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with >>> some of those words so I have no idea what you intend. >> >> Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as >> well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it. > Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound > like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., > do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify. Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally and by design. Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a difference? > I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up. In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one, please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-) > And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly > free, alternative to the monopoly product. And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water? > If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist > political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms > eliminate incentives to creativity. I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do. Next on their list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and 'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs organization and G8. > No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some > imaginary first customer that you make up. On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else > has to share the cost? Who made it up, again? >> If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover >> part of their costs. Why would they? > Because they can. And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in *their* interest to recover those costs now. > How can you ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of > the development cost of a large work? There's no way to ensure it. You may just as well write software with an expectation to sell, but that doesn't sell. You may get fewer customers that you expected. Or more. How would *you* ensure fair distribution of development costs? I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own risk. Just like any other kind of software development. It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40% is out of services, including software development. Sure, this does make a difference for those who believe the aberration of the proprietary license sale model. That doesn't work for Free Software, and it won't work for software in general for very long. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> Nothing is said that has not been said before. > Terence > Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) > > -- +3 or 4) how many times the thread has been renamed :) All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
> > One of the problems with the GPL is that people can > violate it and > > then when they see themselves corraled, they can say I > will release > > the code and be clear. > > This is simply not true. When people violate the GPL, they > lose their > license to further modify or distribute the program. They > depend on > the copyright holders to reinstate the license. If the > copyright > holders refuse to do that, no more modification or > distribution rights > for the infringer. What if the bad guys already made a great deal of money and then they declare themselves bankrupt? What happens if these guys go to another country and cannot be found? They have already taken advantage of the free code available and make their own proprietary programs and not give anything bad. This is what people mean when they say that the GPL cannot be enforced. Sure people can sue, but what guarantees them that the courts will rule in their favor? > > Now, it is common for copyright holders to be happy to > accept outcomes > such as this, because it fulfills the very purpose of the > GPL > (presumably the reason why they chose it in the first > place): to > ensure that all users can have their freedoms respected, > some of which > require access to the source code. > > > There are no consequences. > > Someone who thought that depriving others of these freedoms > was key to > one's business would surely disagree. Add costs of > legal proceedings > and it may become even more serious. And then, nothing > stops > copyright holders from demanding more from the infringers, > but that > wouldn't be in line with the reasoning that often leads > to licensing > under the GPL, and it might very well backfire in the long > run, if it > scares businesses away from the GPL. We already have > enough FUD, no > need to make room for even more. This is very true but unfortunate. Businesses and developers need something that will protect them and make the abusers pay. > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Antonio Olivares wrote: Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to do whatever you want with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and have calves, the calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. This is what the GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk your cow. Remember the cow is licensed under the GPL. It's a huge mistake to create analogies between information and property. If the cow were software, you and I could both milk it. It would never run out. That's the way information works: you copy it and the original is left intact. Property doesn't work like that. If you milk the cow, then the cow will need time to make more milk. I can't go and milk the cow immediately after you. Analogies comparing property and information are misleading because of the fundamental difference between the two. Can we please not continue to compare software and property? I would see real life examples like a teacher and a student. A teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in mathematics. That student learns and goes to higher and higher levels eventually earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school teacher, but was the teacher of the student. The student comes up with a very famous equation or proves a Theorem that has never been proven before. If the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his teachers including the one that taught him in high school. The student proved the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the teachers that he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote the Theorem also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL umbrella :) Is that any justice to the student, who worked all the way up and did his/her homework? The GPL isn't about credit, it's about distribution and rights. Since you're talking about knowledge here, it's a somewhat better analogy than the cow. :) If the teacher had given the student his knowledge under terms similar to the GPL, then that would not allow the teacher to claim that he wrote the student's theorem. It wouldn't even ensure that the teacher could later use the student's theorem to teach others (that'd be more like the AGPL). What it would ensure is that however the student applied the theorem, he would have to describe the theorem itself and all of the mathematical underpinnings that support it to the people to whom he distributes his work. He can charge money for his services if he chooses, but he can not hide the manner in which his work functions, and he can not forbid anyone from discussing his theorem once they've learned of it. So, given that, do you think it's a good thing to forbid people from discussing the theorem that the student discovered? If so, why? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
> > There is not much we can do to help.
>
> Of course there is. If you want to help, call it
> GNU/Linux, or
> GNU+Linux. That's all we ask for.
>
What will I gain if I do that? Do I get a prize?
I would do it for you, but not for RMS :(
Is that fair?
I think that the FSF is not being fair to Fedora as well, when the original
question was asked, why was not Fedora a free GNU/Linux OS? gnewSense, BLAG
and others did make it, while Fedora whose definitions and work are used by the
FSF to define what is a free distribution truly is. This is unfair to Fedora
and all of the people that work on it. I think that just like FSF demands that
we call it GNU/Linux, FSF should give the proper credit to Fedora as well.
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>
Introduction
The purpose of these guidelines is to help people determine whether or not all
the information for practical use in a system distribution (such as a GNU/Linux
distribution) is free, and to help people create such distributions.
"Information for practical use" includes software, documentation, fonts, and
other data that has direct functional applications. It does not include
artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or
statements of opinion or judgment.
These guidelines are not complete. We have mentioned the issues we are aware of
now, but we're sure there are more. We will add them when we come across them.
We would like to thank the Fedora Project for their help in focusing these
policies, and allowing us to use their own distribution license guidelines as a
basis for this document.
Also from the above page:
Nonfree Firmware
Some applications and drivers require firmware to function, and sometimes that
firmware is distributed only in object code form, under a nonfree license. We
call these firmware programs "blobs." On most GNU/Linux systems, you'll
typically find these accompanying some drivers in the kernel Linux. Such
firmware should be removed from a free system distribution.
Blobs can take many forms. Sometimes, they will be provided in separate files.
Other times, they may be incorporated into the source of the driver itself—for
example, it could be encoded as a large array of numbers. But no matter how
it's encoded, any nonfree firmware needs to be removed from a free system.
(To be clear, not every array of numbers in a driver is firmware. It's
important to understand the purpose of the data before deciding whether or not
it's appropriate for a free system.)
Brian Brazil, Jeff Moe, and Alexandre Oliva have developed a series of scripts
to remove nonfree firmware from a stock version of Linux. You may find them
helpful if you would like to develop your own free GNU/Linux distribution. The
complete source for a blob-free version of Linux is also available; you can
learn more about this from the Free Software Directory.
Since Fedora is not a truly free GNU/Linux Distribution, why shall I call it
Fedora GNU/Linux?
Where is the script that I shall run to make my system a GNU/Linux system?
On a side note; Debian was pressured to call it Debian GNU/Linux by Stallman.
No one should pressure you to call a distribution what you do not want to call
it.
When they created the OS with GNU + Linux, they should have done this not leave
the name in the air like it is right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
> >
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> --
I have read the page you have referenced, but I do not get anything out of it
{ 2006 09 30 }
Why can’t free software and open source advocates just get along?
I can ask why can't all the peoples of the world get along as well?
Regards,
Antonio
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Nothing is said that has not been said before. Terence Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Nothing is said that has not been said before. Terence Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Nothing is said that has not been said before. Terence Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 27, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author Any reason to imply that any other Free Software license (or any license whatsoever) would have brought forth a better outcome? Plagiarism precedes the GPL by several centuries. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 27, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the problems with the GPL is that people can violate it and > then when they see themselves corraled, they can say I will release > the code and be clear. This is simply not true. When people violate the GPL, they lose their license to further modify or distribute the program. They depend on the copyright holders to reinstate the license. If the copyright holders refuse to do that, no more modification or distribution rights for the infringer. Now, it is common for copyright holders to be happy to accept outcomes such as this, because it fulfills the very purpose of the GPL (presumably the reason why they chose it in the first place): to ensure that all users can have their freedoms respected, some of which require access to the source code. > There are no consequences. Someone who thought that depriving others of these freedoms was key to one's business would surely disagree. Add costs of legal proceedings and it may become even more serious. And then, nothing stops copyright holders from demanding more from the infringers, but that wouldn't be in line with the reasoning that often leads to licensing under the GPL, and it might very well backfire in the long run, if it scares businesses away from the GPL. We already have enough FUD, no need to make room for even more. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 17:31 -0400, TechList wrote: > Right now there are two situation. One situation, is that I have 1 machine > that acts as a print server with the printer physically connected to it (e.g > via USB port). Say I have 5 other computers on the LAN, I have to configure > printer on each of those 5 computer to use the same print server, right ? How > do I avoid doing "system-config-printer" five times on those machine ? As Aaron said, once a CUPS server is configured to print to that printer, all other CUPS clients will use it automatically. The only configuration you should have to do, if you want and need to, is pick a default printer if you have more than one available. If you manually configure clients, you may disrupt the automatic feature. I haven't done manual configuration for a long time, but in the past it'd stop it automatic printer finding, completely. I think that, more recently, it just adds manually configured printers to the discovered ones. Firewalling can get in the way, too. > A second situation is that the printer sits on the network (e.g a printer > with > ethernet and HP Jet Direct protocol). If I have multiple computer that tries > to use that printer, how do I set it up once and just copy the configuration > among those computers ? If it's network printing using IPP, then it should be found just the same as the CUPS server (automatically). Ethernet is just a connection, IPP is Internet Printing Protocol. There are other network printing protocols, and I don't know how the HP does its tricks. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 18:57 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I set up a Search Folder in Evolution to > show my posts in context with the rest of the thread. Works fine. > Could you elaborate on that? -- Regards, Simon -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two >> source files: lib.c and main.c. [...] John A. publishes the >> whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c >> in any other way. [...] >> Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so >> she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on >> features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual >> restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD >> license. > No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no > need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes > GPL-encumbered parts. And yet in this same e-mail you were claiming that the GPL would somehow deprive people of the additional permissions granted by the mBSD header, because of a misreading of section 2 that, per what you say above, you don't really believe. > And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on > a non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are > unique and no GPL-compatible implementation exists. Show me. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards: the case you cited is one of GPLed library and derived program distributed under an incompatible license. We're talking about GPLed sources derived from non-GPLed libraries. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Oh, goodieyet another subject to trash. Can't you "people" just stick to one lousy thread? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author http://www.linux.com/feature/57131 The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original authors despite having the copyright(s). Yes, but a third party can violate *any* license. That's not a fault of the GPL. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Older machine, Install-DVD doesnt boot
Here's my problem: I've got an older pc (Asus Cusi-M) with Celeron(1100MHz), 500MB RAM. As I tried to boot the installation-dvd (which works with nearly every other distribution, e.g.ubuntu does and is installed) it hanging directly after starting isolinux. it shows me a boot> prompt and wants to know the kernels name. It also says for normal installation, I only need to hit return to boot, but nothing happens. not frozen but always asking-a-new about the kernel stuff. So here is my question: Which are the correct kernel parameters to pass to the live-kernel from dvd? I tried: vmlinuz0 root=/dev/ram0 but thats not enough info I guess... It reacts with a kernel-panic-message, no root was found (or sth.like.that) and displays 16 ram-adresses in a table (/ram0 to /ram15). Does anyone know, what to do? I can add, that my mainboard has always problems with booting bigger devices. For a linux-installation (of every kind) I need to install an a seperate boot-partition (not more than 8000MiB harddisk is allowed by bios). and root on another partition. So I think there's nothing I can do about this bios-outdate-problem. But if I can pass the right boot-parameters to the live-kernel, I believe it should work... While it's highly unlikely to solve your problem - the first thing to do is to verify the integrity of your install CD (or DVD). There is an option to check your CD at the begining of the install process.gary -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Alexandre Oliva wrote: 2b is not a "terms" of the license, it is a condition for you to be entitled to modify and distribute the work, or modified versions of it, under the GPL. If you want to distribute it under another license, and you have some additional permission to do so, it doesn't get in your way. Using any other terms would be a direct contradiction of what it says. Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" If you agree to "cause any work that you distribute or publish, You don't have to agree to that. That's the point. That's where you're misreading it. Please talk to a lawyer you trust. You omitted what it really says: "You must cause...". Does the word "must" mean something different in Brazil? Here, there are no options associated with it. If you need any permissions the GPL gives, that requirement goes with it. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 27, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is not much we can do to help. Of course there is. If you want to help, call it GNU/Linux, or GNU+Linux. That's all we ask for. > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html Hear, hear. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies. Obviously. Have you ever wondered why? If you are stuck with the viral nature of the GPL already infecting the kernel you probably aren't thinking about how your code might be useful to others and in other situations anyway, so the restrictions might not concern you. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 27, 2008, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antonio Olivares wrote: >> When this project was born, RMS should have demanded right then and >> there that the project be named GNU/Linux, I have read that he >> suggested LiGNUX, but that it sounded awkward > At the time, RMS had no reason to suggest any such thing. When he was > suggesting names for Linus' kernel, He never did such a thing, AFAIK. He suggested a name for the combination of the operating system GNU with the kernel Linux. Never to the kernel itself. That he did is just one of the lies by those who want to denigrate the RMS, the FSF and the Free Software movement. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 27, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You know, I don't want to be rude or hostile in any way, but I just > can't help this feeling that the (noble) reasons you state above are > somehow in a disharmony with your behavior (ie. your posts) in this > thread. I've already covered the why elsewhere in the thread, and even in the message you responded, but how about we save that part of the debate for later, just so that nobody thinks you're just resorting to ad hominem and red herrings to draw attention away from our debate on factual matters? My intentions or even my honesty shouldn't matter at all to assess the truth of my points, at least as long as there's no doubt as to the correctness of the evidence I present. It's all verifiable anyway. > I am also a believer in FOSS and all that, This doesn't make much sense, especially when FS and OSS have conflicting goals, as they do in this case. > If there were a genuine credit to be appropriately given to GNU, I would > expect the general public to recognize that spontaneously over time, Unless there was a conspiracy to deny it that credit, as you say. Now take it straight from the horse's mouth: The whole "Open Source" *renaming* was done largely _exactly_ because people wanted to distance themselves from the FSF. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161 First, rename the software and take credit for it (1992-today), then make a fuss that the FSF is trying to rename their kernel rather than asking for the name of the OS to be restored (~1994-today), then use the leverage and the minor-presented-as-full achievement of building such a great operating system to *rename* the movement and mine its goals even further (1998-today). Renamer, and proud of it. But renaming back, or at least to something fair, no, that couldn't be permitted, because it would help promote the agenda they wanted to subvert, obviate and demean. Is "hijack" too strong a term? Making it seem like it was the self-proclaimed "pragmatic" approach of sacrificing the fundamental goals of the original movement that enabled and led to the development of a nearly-complete system and made it valuable for people and businesses to use. Indeed, part of the commercial success of it stems precisely from this subversion of the movement and sacrificing of its essential goals. That's precisely because many big businesses saw an opportunity to use it to mine existing monopolies to establish their own, on other levels, by as much as failing to abide by the fundamental issues that motivated the creation of most of the software. How's that for conspiracy theories? http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2006/09/30/why-cant-free-software-and-open-source-advocates-just-get-along/ -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: pulseaudio does not start after kernel update
su, 2008-07-27 kello 23:34 +0100, Andrea kirjoitti: > Antti J. Huhtala wrote: > > su, 2008-07-27 kello 11:29 +0100, Marcelo M. Garcia kirjoitti: > >> > > Yes, same and similar problems. I haven't tried Skype but when I > > redirected gtreamer stream to USB headphones instead of the usual > > loudspeakers of my Athlon64 desktop, Rhythmbox would play one track for > > a couple of minutes but then sound suddenly died in the middle of the > > track. I didn't do anything but listened. > > > > 'dmesg | grep pulseaudio' shows this: > > > > pulseaudio[2696]: segfault at 7f6acfca7330 ip 7f6acfca7330 sp > > 7fffdd2d5b58 error 14 in pulse-shm-1926128445[7f6ad04e6000+201000] > > > > It is high above my grasp of things to even try to guess what this > > means. It probably is a new quirk, appearing after latest kernel update. > > Same here. > pulseaudio server was not available, bur I run "pulseaudio -D" on command > line and soud is working now. > As in "Daemonize after startup, i.e. detach from the terminal." I see. I did not try that because sound via loudspeakers still worked using "ES1371 DAC1". Some KDE games direct sounds to USB headphones now. > my kernel is > > kernel-2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686 > That's the one except that here it is 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.x86_64. Antti -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
> > If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would > not have gone > > anywhere > > It would have completed it eventually, or someone else > would have > developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we > have at > least 4. > > > without the GNU tools, where would Linux be? > > Who knows? It might not even have come to existence, since > it was > developed making extensive use of GNU software, and it > depended > heavily on GNU software to be usable since its inception, > and nobody > ever tried to change that. > > > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who > receives the gift of > > a GPL cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely > free, but all of > > the milk from the cow must be given away for free, and > all of the > > cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, > even unto the thousandth > > generation, shall be given away for free. > > If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the > GPL, then it > can't have been given as a gift, Why can't it be given as a gift, you are free to do whatever you want with the cow. If you decide to let the cow eat hay and have calves, the calves that you have can be shared with thy neighbor. This is what the GPL enforces. The neighbor needs milk, he can milk your cow. Remember the cow is licensed under the GPL. > > for gift amounts to > ownership, which > is slavery rather than freedom. Yes you are a slave of the GPL, you have the freedom to do anything with the cow, provided that you follow the license completely. > I perceive an > overloaded-word fallacy > here: using 'free' with two very distinct senses, > one that tries to > bring the subject closer to the Free Software free, while > all others > have to do with cost. The cost in monetary terms means that the program is free*, but there are strings attached. IF you improve the program and make it more robust, you can't keep it to yourself you must share back. I would see real life examples like a teacher and a student. A teacher teaches a student many wonderful things say in mathematics. That student learns and goes to higher and higher levels eventually earning a Ph.D. The teacher is just a high school teacher, but was the teacher of the student. The student comes up with a very famous equation or proves a Theorem that has never been proven before. If the student uses the GPL, he has to credit all of his teachers including the one that taught him in high school. The student proved the Theorem himself and he does acknowledge all of the teachers that he had. All of the teachers can claim that they wrote the Theorem also because they are protected under the GNU/GPL umbrella :) Is that any justice to the student, who worked all the way up and did his/her homework? So users and developers are slaves of the GPL? Will we need to see an Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation of the GPL? Here's an attempt to emancipate the GPL to free the slaves Four score and seven years ago, our four GPL fathers brought upon us a free operating system combining the GNU tools with the linux kernel, that no software, ... Four score and seven years ago our FSF/GPL fathers brought forth on this continent, a new license, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that not all softwares are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that name(Linux), or any name(GNU/Linux) so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their time so that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work(GNU without Linux kernel) which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this FSF, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that software of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the GNU earth. > > > Now what kind of use is such a cow? > > You can eat it. You can use its pieces to build other > objects and > sell them. And you can expect to get more "free" > cows from the > neighbor, so you could run a business until the neighbor > realizes what > you're doing and realizes he can do that hi
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
> Unix/opensolaris/freebsd/openbsd??? What other operating > system > combines its name with a political movement? > > -- GNU-Darwin Distribution http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ which apparently runs on MACS. Question here is which has more users, the above system or the LinuxPPC which is Linux Kernel running on MACs. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there was no kernel, the GNU operating system would not have gone > anywhere It would have completed it eventually, or someone else would have developed another kernel that would work with GNU. ATM we have at least 4. > without the GNU tools, where would Linux be? Who knows? It might not even have come to existence, since it was developed making extensive use of GNU software, and it depended heavily on GNU software to be usable since its inception, and nobody ever tried to change that. > An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who receives the gift of > a GPL cow from a neighbour. The cow is completely free, but all of > the milk from the cow must be given away for free, and all of the > cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, even unto the thousandth > generation, shall be given away for free. If the cow is completely free in the same sense as in the GPL, then it can't have been given as a gift, for gift amounts to ownership, which is slavery rather than freedom. I perceive an overloaded-word fallacy here: using 'free' with two very distinct senses, one that tries to bring the subject closer to the Free Software free, while all others have to do with cost. > Now what kind of use is such a cow? You can eat it. You can use its pieces to build other objects and sell them. And you can expect to get more "free" cows from the neighbor, so you could run a business until the neighbor realizes what you're doing and realizes he can do that himself, and kills his own "free" cows. There's a fable about a farmer who kills the goose that laid golden eggs somewhere. Of course none of this bears any significant resemblance with the way the GPL works. > This is quite interesting and the points are very well stated. Yep. Clever use of fallacies and dependence on public ignorance and gullibility :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 10:29 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it > > "if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid > for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a > different and separate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top > of the file above the existing license." He then suggested, "if you > wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That > means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want > to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be > telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file, 'thanks for what you > wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, > we give you you nothing back.'" > > > Regards, > > Antonio Good point, give and take is not a bad way to live. Me, I'm using the GPL because I expect people to take a shot at it, to give me back improvements, and the wheel turns. Knowing that is what I want to do, and knowing beforehand the elements of the GPL license, in my case I'm happy as a clam. Plus, there is the element of control that no one will take it and run off to make a buck on it, without getting their pants sued off. But, I wouldn't want someone to port it to BSD and use their license to allow others to do that, run with it for a fast buck. Tit for tat. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 13:49 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > > > I have also found a page in which it clearly explains > > some problems with > > > the GPL > > The analogy > > collapses once you realize that information can not be > > moved, only copied, > > and matter can not be copied, only moved. > May I ask why the code was moved to GPL, it was also copied? Does that make > sense? > > > Regards, > > Antonio A very good question, Antonio. Very good. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, RMS and GNU did begin to create an operating system, but failed to > finish it before Linus took the "unfinished" OS and finished it himself. IOW, Linus completed GNU? > And now they ask for credit? For what? For cloning&enhancing Unix OS > infrastructure and GPL-ing it? (ok, I am being a bit over the line > here, I know, sorry... ;-) ) Yeah, shared with credit for the kernel that cloned&enhanced Unix kernel infrastructure and GPL-ed it, forming a complete Unix operating system that amounted to that kernel plus GNU minus its own kernel. Anything wrong with that? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Theo continued to complain about the lack of cooperation between the > Linux driver authors and the original OpenBSD developers. The problem > that he perceived was that the Linux driver developers created a > derived work, and the code that *they* contributed to the driver was > licensed only under the GPL. This made it unacceptable for the > OpenBSD developers to use the modifications from the Linux developers. And that's not because of any restriction, real or imagined, imposed by Linux developers, but rather by OpenBSD developers own decision to reject code that they couldn't distribute on their own terms. Oddly, a choice they claim to make to enable to people to do just what they're complaining about: create derived works that they can't use. Talk about consistency. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Announcement: New repo with updated ClamAV packages for Fedora 8
Verily I say unto thee, that Rahul Sundaram spake thusly: > Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: >> Also I'm still investigating the legality of building unrar against >> GPL sources. I think this is not a question of whether the author >> gives his permission to distribute freeware, but more a question of >> whether GPL software can be linked to proprietary software. > > Unrar support is a copyright infringement. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=334371 Thanks. I've disabled unrar support, rebuilt and published (now available for F7-i386 too): http://rpm.slated.org -- Regards, Keith G. Robertson-Turner -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the > BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies. Obviously. Have you ever wondered why? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
> >> IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions > of the GPL. The > >> permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and > every part as a > >> consequence of this. > > > Not _just_ the permissions. The exact terms of the > license must > > apply: > > Exactly. And the GPL *is* a set of permissions with > conditions, > nothing but it. Like any other Free Software license. > > > It says the 'terms of this License'. You > can't have the terms of this > > license without the terms of 2b also being applied. > > 2b is not a "terms" of the license, it is a > condition for you to be > entitled to modify and distribute the work, or modified > versions of > it, under the GPL. If you want to distribute it under > another > license, and you have some additional permission to do so, > it doesn't > get in your way. > > >> Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? > "You may breathe in, as > >> long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" > > > If you agree to > > "cause any work that you distribute or > publish, > > You don't have to agree to that. That's the point. > That's where > you're misreading it. Please talk to a lawyer you > trust. > > -- Who can he trust, most of them sell themselves to protect others but your own interests :( Here's a page about Harald Welte's blog, where one can find out about GPL violations http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/linux/a780/ http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/linux/gpl-violations/index.html GPL Freedom has limits: http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20040626011624480.html One of the problems with the GPL is that people can violate it and then when they see themselves corraled, they can say I will release the code and be clear. There are no consequences. This is also a reason why the users that choose licenses try to avoid the GPL. GPLv3 tries to correct some of the issues, but it has some things that many proponents of the GPL do not agree to :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The >> permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a >> consequence of this. > Not _just_ the permissions. The exact terms of the license must > apply: Exactly. And the GPL *is* a set of permissions with conditions, nothing but it. Like any other Free Software license. > It says the 'terms of this License'. You can't have the terms of this > license without the terms of 2b also being applied. 2b is not a "terms" of the license, it is a condition for you to be entitled to modify and distribute the work, or modified versions of it, under the GPL. If you want to distribute it under another license, and you have some additional permission to do so, it doesn't get in your way. >> Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as >> long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" > If you agree to > "cause any work that you distribute or publish, You don't have to agree to that. That's the point. That's where you're misreading it. Please talk to a lawyer you trust. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
On Jul 27, 2008, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now it is no >> longer needed because it does not allow collaboration between >> different OpenSource communities. > More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the 1990's. One thing changed: companies who wanted to weaken the GPL invented other copyleft licenses that were incompatible with it, so that the GPL would no longer be this "universal receiver", creating the problem that Les keeps complaining about and blaming on the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Gordon Messmer wrote: > Well, the kernel's purpose is to load other, more sophisticated applications. Again, there's no magic in the Linux kernel. It's just a program, like all of the others. I'd call fork() and exec() somewhat magic in this context, seeing as how no unix program but init could run without them. All those gnu-ish programs with the exception of grub and memtest86++ would still be waiting around for the hurd to start them if it weren't for linux. I agree that grub is as essential as the Linux kernel according to my measuring stick (that is why I mentioned it in the first place), but it is eliminated from the contest on other grounds. And I hope we all agree that giving the name to a distro based on the bootloader is plain silly. No more than naming an operating system after its kernel. I'm not aware of any other operating system which is referred to by a name which is clearly the name of its kernel and nothing else. Unix/opensolaris/freebsd/openbsd??? What other operating system combines its name with a political movement? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
> > I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I > have to say that > > although you have many good points, Les has very good > points as well. > > I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL. > ... > > /* name withheld to protect the identity of this > previous GPL author > > */ > > You mean someone *other* than Les? Yes :) > > > As a GPL developer, he tried to sue some GPL violators > and found that > > you cannot succeed. The majority of GPL violations > is/was done by > > small companies that cannot be threaten by forbidding > them to sell > > their products that are based on the violation. > > That's exactly what copyright law offers. If someone > is distributing > your software in violation of the license, the court can > order them to > stop distribution. The GPL, specifically, will also > terminate their > rights to distribute as a result of their violation. If > they want to > continue to distribute the software, they must negotiate > with the > copyright holder to restore that right. > > > As you in general cannot sue people for GPL > violations, why should we > > add restrictions to software that just hit the users > but not the > > abusers? > > That is a ridiculous assertion that has no foundation. The > GPL does not > "hit" users in any way. They don't even have > to accept its terms unless > they want to distribute the software. > > If the GPL were ineffective against abusers, then it > wouldn't affect > anyone at all. Portraying users as innocent victims of the > GPL is an > outright lie. > > > The logical result from this question is to put > software under a > > license that does not restrict collaboration in the > OpenSource area > > (like the GPL unfortunately does). > > That result is also illogical. If your supposed GPL > developer couldn't > enforce the GPL against companies that violated its terms, > then I don't > see any reason to believe that he could enforce any other > license, > either. He might as well put his software in the public > domain and > ignore licenses completely. Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author http://www.linux.com/feature/57131 The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original authors despite having the copyright(s). > > > In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now > it is no > > longer needed because it does not allow collaboration > between > > different OpenSource communities. > > More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the > 1990's. If > anything, there are now even more companies which would use > code that is > currently GPL licensed in proprietary products. > > > The GPL is an "universal receiver" > > of software from other licenses but it does not allow > GPL code to > > move towards other projects. > > That's not a fair characterization, either. The GPL is > not a "universal > receiver". It can only include software that is under > compatible > licenses. Furthermore, the license itself does not prevent > GPL code > from moving into other, more permissively license projects. > It does not > do so by default, certainly, but if there is good cause to > contribute > code to a project under a more permissive license (such as > in the case > that the GPL project used some code from the other, more > permissively > licensed project), then the authors of that project can ask > for a copy > of the software under a suitable license. > > Negotiating. We can all do it. Licenses don't change > that. We can negociate, the hard part is being in agreement :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps no code is shared, but what about the design? GNU's not Unix. The credit for the design is right there in the name. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Jul 27, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Memtest runs under the bios operating system. Nope. It does rely on probing and some BIOS configuration tables to find out what it's running on, but that's about it. No operating system involved. > No program runs without some sort of kernel, except the kernel > itself. That's just not true. Have a look at all of the *-elf or *-coff configurations available in the GNU toolchain. Those are aimed at creating applications for embedded targets without any operating system whatsoever. They run on bare hardware, *sometimes* with a loader that enables arbitrary files to be loaded over say a serial line or over NFS, *sometimes* configured to just start the program stored on (P)ROM. > And I hope we all agree that giving the name to a distro based on > the bootloader is plain silly. And why wouldn't naming the distro after the kernel be just as silly? >> Even Fedora includes yet another, called xen. And then xen >> starts Linux. Why is the xen virtual machine monitor not more >> essential than Linux, per your proposed measuring stick? > I am not very familiar with the working of xen, but it looks just like an > additional step to booting the kernel. Most hypervisors are microkernels of their own (the exceptions being full-fledged kernels). Xen is slightly different from most in that, even though it is a microkernel, it depends on and redirects to another kernel that runs under it a lot of interaction with the hardware. All the kernels running under xen are under constraints determined by xen, so they're not as special as they were before, but this one kernel (called domain 0) is not as constrained, so it remains a bit more special than the others. But it definitely isn't just a loader. > As I said above, grub [...] has nothing specifically to do with the > [GNU/]Linux os or distro (except that it is convinient to include it there > and that it is GPL'ed). Ok, this is a new criterion you've introduced. It's a good one. So, if we take out the kernel Linux, and put on another kernel, like some have done, if you still get the same operating system, then Linux also has "nothing specifically to do with the os or distro (except that it is convenient to include it there and that it is GPL'ed)". Right? What other artifical exceptions and work-arounds are you going to have to invent to make it seem like Linux deserves to be more relevant than GNU in a distro? Isn't that an indication of something about both your intent and about the truth of what you're trying to dispute? > If you remove the whole distro, including the kernel, > you are left with the bios and its applications (grub, memtest, etc.). That > is a *different* os, Agreed. Just like, if you remove all but Linux, you're left with a different OS from this one we're talking about. In fact, I said so myself in the first message under this new subject, and you agreed this wasn't a good measuring stick. > So grub simply does not deserve its name in the name of the distro > or the os. s/grub/linux/ CQD -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Alexandre Oliva wrote: If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are requirements for the exercise of the permissions. GPL terms are not only permissions, they are restrictions as well. It doesn't take away any other permissions you might have. Normally I would have permission to apply terms of my choice. When distributing something as a part of a GPL-encumbered work, I don't. I also can't use your choice or your lawyer's choice. The GPL says it must be "this License". That it does is the incorrect assumption that's misleading you. That's what the license says. Consider this scenario: John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was developed to be released under the GPL (so these are the headers it carries). John A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c in any other way. Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c would be really useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies gnothing by removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c to her version control system, along with changes to the build machinery to have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then publishes linstall, under the GPLv3+. Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, and sees lib.c show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for his bsdown Free Software program, that he's always distributed under the 3-clause BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a new version of bsdown. Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD license. Please ask your lawyer questions such as: - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing or lib.c automatically terminated? - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from distributing lib.c in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given or implied by the description above, or even by itself under the modified BSD license, without a copy of the GPL? - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from distributing this version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual EULA? then let us know how he justifies the answers. No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes GPL-encumbered parts. The questionable situation would be if Ken or Evelyn also needed the complete gnothing or a modification and thus had to agree to GPL terms before extracting a part of it in a way that violates it. Would this imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of GPL-covered components modified to link with proprietary libraries among people who otherwise have the right to do so AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding dependencies on non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is very common, in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free operating systems. There is a special exception for system libraries. You can't use that as an example. And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on a non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are unique and no GPL-compatible implementation exists. (This is bizarre in my opinion because the copyright infringement status can change with no change to the code in question if a new library suddenly exists somewhere). It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be distributed in a form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, without also offering the corresponding sources of the library under the GPL, but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code form, you're covered, and if you can create an object form of the program that does not contain code derived from the library, and then distribute it, you're also covered. That's absolutely wrong, with the exception granted for standard operating system libraries. Actually it is questionable legally, but the FSF position is that the dependency creates a derived work. If you can find archives back to 1993 or so, look up the history of RIPEM and why the FSF considered a source distribution to be infringing for its use of the gmp library. I'd try to explain it but you wouldn't believe it. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
> At the time, RMS had no reason to suggest any such thing. > When he was > suggesting names for Linus' kernel, the difference > between the GNU OS > and the then-unnamed kernel was a common understanding. > People had not > yet begun to incorrectly refer to the GNU OS as Linux. > > -- It is hard to determine what the future holds, but from the very beginning of a project, one has to set precedents. Let's say you create something and give it a name, and your friend gives it another name. Your friends name is more popular than the name you selected. The people call the something by your friends name. Is there something wrong with that? A friend gave me a cat, I named the cat and my mom also gave a name to the cat. I called the cat with the name I gave, it did not come and acknowledge me. But when my mom called it, it would go to her. I did get angry In the quest to find more and more answers and the threads about the naming controversy, there is not much to do, but continue. It is too late to ask for a name change. There is not much we can do to help. The arguments can go back and forth. Users that want to learn more about the issues may visit http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00080.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00092.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00097.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html BTW, for those users that are first coming in to the discussion, the original question was "Why Fedora was a non/Free distribution?" as GNU recommends/acknowledges http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions It is a stake in the heart to Fedora users because they truly do a great deal to make sure programs are free and not patent encumbered. But that is another thing. One of the reasons given was that Fedora included some firmware that was not free :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: I know I will hear some comments, but these are some of the reasons why many developers try to avoid the GPL. Here's probably the strongest case against it. The GPL is an "universal receiver" of software from other licenses but it does not allow GPL code to move towards other projects. No, it's worse than that. The GPL restrictions even prevent receiving code covered by licenses that require the original attributions to be maintained, like the original BSD, MPL, and CDDL licenses, so much freely available work has to be repeated, generally forcing the users to repeat the debugging. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part. Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. GPLv2 section 2 says: (emphasis mine) the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose *permissions* for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and *thus* to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a consequence of this. Not _just_ the permissions. The exact terms of the license must apply: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Section 6 says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. IOW, you get the GPL permissions by receiving the program, and upstream distributors can't have restricted any of these permissions. I don't see anything that would stop any of them from granting additional permissions over their own contributions. There can be additional permissions, but if you need the ones granted by the GPL, you must apply them to the work as a whole. Now, back to section 2, and your favorite 2b. It says that you may modify the program and distribute modified versions of the program under this license, as long as you (among other things) grant the same permissions, subject to the same conditions, to recipients of the modified program and derived versions thereof. Again, it doesn't say you can't grant additional permissions. It says the 'terms of this License'. You can't have the terms of this license without the terms of 2b also being applied. It doesn't say you have to impose restrictions that stop others from enjoying additional permissions you might have gotten yourself. It doesn't say you can't enjoy any additional permissions you got yourself. If you've agreed to the GPL's requirements, then you have agreed that you won't. It says the exact GPL terms must be applied or a modfication can't be distributed. A dual license could be applied but the terms prohibit any alternative from being used if you need the permissions provided only by the GPL. Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" If you agree to "cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License" then it is pretty clear that you can't pick a piece out and use some other license when you distribute or publish it. If you had no reason to agree to the GPL at all, you'd be free to use other terms of a dual-licensed work. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say that although you have many good points, Les has very good points as well. I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL. ... /* name withheld to protect the identity of this previous GPL author */ You mean someone *other* than Les? As a GPL developer, he tried to sue some GPL violators and found that you cannot succeed. The majority of GPL violations is/was done by small companies that cannot be threaten by forbidding them to sell their products that are based on the violation. That's exactly what copyright law offers. If someone is distributing your software in violation of the license, the court can order them to stop distribution. The GPL, specifically, will also terminate their rights to distribute as a result of their violation. If they want to continue to distribute the software, they must negotiate with the copyright holder to restore that right. As you in general cannot sue people for GPL violations, why should we add restrictions to software that just hit the users but not the abusers? That is a ridiculous assertion that has no foundation. The GPL does not "hit" users in any way. They don't even have to accept its terms unless they want to distribute the software. If the GPL were ineffective against abusers, then it wouldn't affect anyone at all. Portraying users as innocent victims of the GPL is an outright lie. The logical result from this question is to put software under a license that does not restrict collaboration in the OpenSource area (like the GPL unfortunately does). That result is also illogical. If your supposed GPL developer couldn't enforce the GPL against companies that violated its terms, then I don't see any reason to believe that he could enforce any other license, either. He might as well put his software in the public domain and ignore licenses completely. In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now it is no longer needed because it does not allow collaboration between different OpenSource communities. More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the 1990's. If anything, there are now even more companies which would use code that is currently GPL licensed in proprietary products. The GPL is an "universal receiver" of software from other licenses but it does not allow GPL code to move towards other projects. That's not a fair characterization, either. The GPL is not a "universal receiver". It can only include software that is under compatible licenses. Furthermore, the license itself does not prevent GPL code from moving into other, more permissively license projects. It does not do so by default, certainly, but if there is good cause to contribute code to a project under a more permissive license (such as in the case that the GPL project used some code from the other, more permissively licensed project), then the authors of that project can ask for a copy of the software under a suitable license. Negotiating. We can all do it. Licenses don't change that. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Last kernel Update (2.6.25.11-97) breaks wlan (iwl4965)
2008/7/27 M A Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Bjoern Schiessle wrote: > > Hello, >> >> since my kernel upgrade from 2.6.25.10-86.fc9.x86_64 to >> 2.6.25.11-97.fc9.x86_64 my wlan nic stopped working. >> > > I had the similar problem. It seems the GUI package manager failed to > update the iwl4965-firmware package, but doing a yum update fixed it. > >Michael Young > > > Yes, that worked for me too. Thank you :) John -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Antonio Olivares wrote: When this project was born, RMS should have demanded right then and there that the project be named GNU/Linux, I have read that he suggested LiGNUX, but that it sounded awkward At the time, RMS had no reason to suggest any such thing. When he was suggesting names for Linus' kernel, the difference between the GNU OS and the then-unnamed kernel was a common understanding. People had not yet begun to incorrectly refer to the GNU OS as Linux. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Marko Vojinovic wrote: On Sunday 27 July 2008 03:40, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But the system without a kernel has *precisely zero* usability. Yet you provided and cited the counter-example yourself: the boot loader required to load the kernel, and that actually provides some usability, including the ability to load a fully-functional program such as memtest86+, that runs without a kernel and is also included in the distribution. You could get many other useful programs that run in "real mode" started from grub. I don't understand what you mean by "real mode". Memtest runs under the bios operating system. The fact that it is a part of a distro and being invoked by grub is just a matter of convenience. No program runs without some sort of kernel, except the kernel itself. ... Also for grub itself. It is an application that runs under bios. There is no magic in Linux that distinguishes it from GRUB. Both are "applications" that run in real mode. Real mode is an operating mode for general purpose processors wherein an application has full access to interrupts, hardware IO, memory, etc. Most kernels run applications in protected mode, where they do not have direct access to hardware. That's the only thing that really separates the kernel from other processes. It runs in real mode. So does Memtest86+. And GRUB. And Xen. They're all just processes. Your belief that the kernel is a magical element of an operating system stems from the fact that you don't understand what real mode is, or how processors work. That's OK, most people never will. They don't have any reason to. But since you don't understand that, please believe us when we tell you that GRUB, Memtest86+, Xen, and Linux are all applications that run in real mode. A kernel is not required in order to run a real-mode application, which makes Alexandre's comparison fair. The system has *some* functionality without or before Linux runs, since users can interact with real-mode applications. (They can actually do more with those real mode applications than they could with Linux and no GNU) It's main purpose is to load some other, more sophisticated kernel, that, once running, eliminates the need for both bios and grub. So you cannot exactely consider grub to be a part that defines an os. Well, the kernel's purpose is to load other, more sophisticated applications. Again, there's no magic in the Linux kernel. It's just a program, like all of the others. I agree that grub is as essential as the Linux kernel according to my measuring stick (that is why I mentioned it in the first place), but it is eliminated from the contest on other grounds. And I hope we all agree that giving the name to a distro based on the bootloader is plain silly. No more than naming an operating system after its kernel. I'm not aware of any other operating system which is referred to by a name which is clearly the name of its kernel and nothing else. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Marko Vojinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy > To: "For users of Fedora" > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 3:40 PM > On Sunday 27 July 2008 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > They just want you to push on their agenda. What > do you get out of it? > > > > Err... I happen to work for the goals I myself > believe in. That's > > why I co-founded FSFLA, a completely autonomous > organization. It just > > so happens to pursue the same goals of other FSFes all > over the world. > > Good for them. What I get out of it is the feeling of > correcting > > social injustice, of working to make the world a > better place. That's > > why I do it. I don't expect to get rich or famous > or powerful out of > > it, but I do hope to be able to look back at my life, > or even at the > > end of the day, and realize I did something other than > surviving, > > making money, and thinking of how to make more money. > > You know, I don't want to be rude or hostile in any > way, but I just can't help > this feeling that the (noble) reasons you state above are > somehow in a > disharmony with your behavior (ie. your posts) in this > thread. > > Even if you are genuinely honest about your motives, your > actions here (posts > in the thread, that is the only thing I know about you) > somehow seem > counterproductive. > > For one, I am also a believer in FOSS and all that, am > willing to acknowledge > appropriate credit to GNU, as a user I can say it is pretty > good software. > Given that, I could even go that far to accept the name > GNU/Linux ;-) , but > somehow I still refrain from doing so. Why? Because pro-GNU > vocals are > pushing for it so much, that it just smells too fishy. > > If there were a genuine credit to be appropriately given to > GNU, I would > expect the general public to recognize that spontaneously > over time, and > start using the name GNU/Linux without anyone talking them > into it. After 17+ > years of official existence of Linux, and even more of GNU, > this has not > happened. And I see no relevant explanation of that other > than words "social > injustice" and some suggestions between the lines that > Linus Thorvalds might > be involved in some kind of conspiracy against GNU to > deprive it of any > credit for good work. But I don't believe in conspiracy > theories, and am not > inclined to change my usual behavior (of calling the os > Linux) based on that. > > I can even suppose that such social injustice could have > happened accidentaly, > and survived for more than a decade. It wouldn't be the > only one. But trying > so hard to correct it raises a lot of doubt in your > motives. Being a > physicist, I can argue about several such injustices where > credit was given > where it was not due, and not given where it was due > (starting from Einstein > himself) that have happend in physics. These things are > widely known to > exist, but nobody tries this hard to correct them. And I > see no point in > doing that, either. The person to get the credit is (even > usually) not the > one that did most of the work, but the one that happened to > be at the right > place at the right time (and Linus Thorvalds simply got > lucky in this sense). > Some times even accidentaly. These things happen all the > time and in all > aspects of social life. People learn this as a process of > growing up, and > learn to accept injustices as an inevitable part of life. > Yet I see nobody > trying to correct those as vocally as you. This also begs a > question for you: > why are you so specific in trying to fix this particular > one social > injustice? Why not some other too? > > Which brings me to explaining why I myself am not involved > in correcting some > injustice and why I have reservation for the motives of > people claiming to do > so. It's simple --- there are way too many injustices > in this world for me to > fix, the sheer number would drain all my abilities to do > anything about them. > And if I go on and pick one injustice while ignoring the > rest, I can't help > seeing myself as a hypocrit. This defeats the purpose, > because a hypocrit is > not a person to give lessons about justice to anyone. :-) > So I simply go on > trying to make a better world in other ways, not by trying > to fix the > wrongdoings of other people or circumstancial or any other > type. > > All in all, while I do believe you are honestly trying to > do something good, > the way you act simply invites people to resist you. I have > not seen the > beginning (and probably the biggest part) of this thread, > but I can imagine > that a simple comment like "I believe Linux should be > actually called > GNU/Linux instead, here is a link why" (as OT inside > some other thread) could > catch my attention in a much more inviting way (I could > even get myself to > c
Re: F8 NetworkManager going crazy at startup
On Thursday 24 July 2008 12:49:30 pm Konstantin Svist wrote: > Christoph Höger wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 23.07.2008, 16:18 -0700 schrieb Konstantin Svist: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've noticed a problem with NM recently (might've happened after a > >> system update, not 100% sure when it started). > >> When I log into KDE, NM starts connecting to the network. It used to > >> connect eth0 if it was available, but nowadays it seems to both do that > >> and attempt connecting to the wifi access point as well (or instead). > >> After some chaotic motions on my part it settles down and connects eth0. > >> > >> What makes it do that and how do I make it stop? > >> Thanks I am having the same problem, and found that either workarounds fixed this. But I don't like it. What strange for me is, when it connects to both Wifi and eth0, it uses Wifi as the default network, even after I try to click the eth0 several time, and NM reported "connected to wired network". I checked this by copying large file over my LAN network and the speed is Wifi speed (~2MB/s) rather than eth0 speed (~9MB/s). That is annoying. > > Right Mouse on nm-applet -> edit connections -> your wifi connection -> > > edit -> disable automatic start should do. > > You mean set the wifi connection to manual? > The great thing about NM so far was that it automatically chose between > the multiple connections -- and ethernet always had priority unless > overridden by hand. If it'll be manual from now on, what's the point? I agree, that's why I don't like this workaround > My *workaround* is right-click on nm-applet -> uncheck enable wireless. I resorted to do this too, but then it's also a problem because you have to enable wireless again if you want to connect. And it prevents the "automatically uses the available Wifi connection when the cable is unplugged". For me it's not a real problem as I'm used to twiddle with the system, but it's not very user friendly for less geeky user that I am setting up this laptop for. RDB -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Marko Vojinovic wrote: For one, I am also a believer in FOSS and all that, am willing to acknowledge appropriate credit to GNU, as a user I can say it is pretty good software. Given that, I could even go that far to accept the name GNU/Linux ;-) , but somehow I still refrain from doing so. Why? Because pro-GNU vocals are pushing for it so much, that it just smells too fishy. ... All in all, while I do believe you are honestly trying to do something good, the way you act simply invites people to resist you. I have not seen the beginning (and probably the biggest part) of this thread, but I can imagine that a simple comment like "I believe Linux should be actually called GNU/Linux instead, here is a link why" (as OT inside some other thread) could catch my attention in a much more inviting way (I could even get myself to click on the link and read about it) than a thread of this volume, full of dispute, arguments, "I'm right and you're wrong" posts and such. The topic actually started when someone ask the list why FSF doesn't list Fedora among its Free GNU/Linux distributions. It seems to me that you are trying to work for your beliefs so hard that you end up working against them. Being too vocal has precisely this effect, and is the wrong strategy in my opinion. :-) Some of us were content to answer the question simply, but others (a *very small* number of others) have responded with misinformation repeatedly. You seem to believe that if we simply remain quiet in the face of others who spread lies or misunderstandings, then everything will work out and everyone will be happy. You're not the first to suggest it, but it sure seems like there aren't many people suggesting the same thing to the people who either don't understand licensing and copyright issues and contribute to a general lack of understanding in the community. I understand that you'd like for us to all get along, but it isn't possible to create a community of educated people by *not* correcting misinformation. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
> I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who > are not > reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the > unchanging subject, > that the original huge thread was all about a single topic. > > Although this particular topic would probably be a better > fit for > fedora-legal, I believe most of its subscribers are > sufficiently > familiar with Free Software licensing to tell that Les' > theory is > flawed, whereas many Free Software users in this list > operate under > the same false assumptions and the influence of FUD against > the GPL, > so I think this sub-thread will remain more useful here. > > For those who somehow got the impression that this list was > supposed > to be limited to technical matters, please update your kill > files to > ignore this thread as well. > > > On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > A lawyer can't change what it says. > > Indeed. But a lawyer you trust could be able to convince > you you've > misunderstood it. > > > If the FSF doesn't not believe that the > work-as-a-whole clause > > actually means the terms must cover the work as a > whole, > > It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are > requirements > for the exercise of the permissions. It doesn't take > away any other > permissions you might have. That it does is the incorrect > assumption > that's misleading you. > > > Consider this scenario: > > John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that > contains two > source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be > released as > a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD > license (so > these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was > developed to be > released under the GPL (so these are the headers it > carries). John > A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, > and never > publishes lib.c in any other way. > > Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c > would be really > useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies > gnothing by > removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c > to her > version control system, along with changes to the build > machinery to > have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then > publishes > linstall, under the GPLv3+. > > Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, > and sees lib.c > show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for > his bsdown > Free Software program, that he's always distributed > under the 3-clause > BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a > new version > of bsdown. > > Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called > macrash, so > she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the > add-on > features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under > the usual > restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause > BSD > license. > > > Please ask your lawyer questions such as: > > - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing > or lib.c > automatically terminated? > > - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from > distributing lib.c > in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given > or implied > by the description above, or even by itself under the > modified BSD > license, without a copy of the GPL? > > - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from > distributing this > version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual > EULA? > > then let us know how he justifies the answers. > > > > Would this imaginative interpretation also permit > sharing of > > GPL-covered components modified to link with > proprietary libraries > > among people who otherwise have the right to do so > > AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding > dependencies on > non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is > very common, > in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free > operating > systems. > > It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be > distributed in a > form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, > without > also offering the corresponding sources of the library > under the GPL, > but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code > form, you're > covered, and if you can create an object form of the > program that does > not contain code derived from the library, and then > distribute it, > you're also covered. > > Now, if you split things up into a separate library, as a > means to > circumvent the GPL, and distribute both the library and the > GPLed > program that you modified so as to depend on it, you might > still face > a lawsuit on the grounds that the library is actually a > derived work, > or even that it is part of a single work, and the > separation is just a > trick to try to circumvent the license. A judge or a jury > might > actually side with the copyright holder of the program you > modified, > in this case. > > -- I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say that
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 17:31 -0400, TechList wrote: > On Sunday 27 July 2008 03:54:44 pm Aaron Konstam wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 09:03 -0400, TechList wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I used to use printconf-tui -Xexport and printconf-tui -Ximport to copy > > > printer configuration from one machine to another so that for machines on > > > the same network I only have to set printer by hand once with > > > system-config-printer. > > > It seems that this feature no longer exists in Fedora 8. What is the way > > > to copy printer configuration now ? should I just copy everything > > > under /etc/cups ? > > > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > TLP > > > > Are they all using the same printer. If they are and they are on the > > same lan no copying is needed. All the machines will use the printer > > configured with cupsd.conf on one of them. The client.conf makes that > > happen. > > I don't understand that. Could you elaborate ? > > Right now there are two situation. One situation, is that I have 1 machine > that acts as a print server with the printer physically connected to it (e.g > via USB port). Say I have 5 other computers on the LAN, I have to configure > printer on each of those 5 computer to use the same print server, right ? How > do I avoid doing "system-config-printer" five times on those machine ? What I am telling you is your assumption is wrong. The way cups works , if a printer is configured on one machine on the lan all the other machines on the lan. You should not have to any configuring on the other machines at all. If it makes you feel better you can fill in the name of the serer on the appropriate line In /etc/cups/client.conf on the client machines, but that need not be done if all the computers are not on the ame lan. The server machine broadcasts the configuration to the client machines. > > A second situation is that the printer sits on the network (e.g a printer > with > ethernet and HP Jet Direct protocol). If I have multiple computer that tries > to use that printer, how do I set it up once and just copy the configuration > among those computers ? > > On each of the case, I use to be able to just configure printer once with > system-config-printer, then do something like > "printconf-tui -Xexport > settings.xml", copy around the settings.xml file, > and do "printconf-tui -Ximport < settings.xml" for the other computers Again nothing need to be done on the client machines on the same lan, Look at local host:631 (web address) on the client machines and you will see the printers. printconf-tui is old pre-cups technology. -- === Without love intelligence is dangerous; without intelligence love is not enough. -- Ashley Montagu === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: pulseaudio does not start after kernel update
Trouble in F8 land too. I have switched kernel but it doesn't work.
The new kernel is 2.6.25.11-60.fc8. I'm
typing this from 2.6.25.6-27.fc8 but still no audio. I have tried
rebuilding pulseaudio but after more than an
hour, I'm giving up. At first, I had to purge pulseaudio - yum erase
pulseaudio.
title Fedora (2.6.25.11-60.fc8)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.25.11-60.fc8 ro root=LABEL=/1 rhgb quiet
initrd /boot/initrd-2.6.25.11-60.fc8.img
title Fedora (2.6.25.6-27.fc8)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.25.6-27.fc8 ro root=LABEL=/1 rhgb quiet
initrd /boot/initrd-2.6.25.6-27.fc8.img
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I..-I../src -I../src/modules
-I../src/modules/rtp -I../src/modules/gconf -pthread
-D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -I../libltdl -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/local/include
-DPA_DLSEARCHPATH=\"/usr/local/lib/pulse-0.9/modules/\"
-DPA_DEFAULT_CONFIG_DIR=\"/usr/local/etc/pulse\"
-DPA_BINARY=\"/usr/local/bin/pulseaudio\"
-DPA_SYSTEM_RUNTIME_PATH=\"/usr/local/var/run/pulse\"
-DPA_SYSTEM_CONFIG_PATH=\"/usr/local/var/lib/pulse\"
-DPA_SYSTEM_STATE_PATH=\"/usr/local/var/lib/pulse\" -DAO_REQUIRE_CAS
'-DDEBUG_TRAP=__asm__("int $3")' -I/usr/local/include/liboil-0.3
-I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/local/include/liboil-0.3 -I/usr/include/dbus-1.0
-I/usr/lib/dbus-1.0/include-g -O2 -std=gnu99 -Wall -W -Wextra
-pedantic -pipe -Wformat -Wold-style-definition
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wfloat-equal -Wmissing-declarations
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -Wredundant-decls
-Wmissing-noreturn -Wshadow -Wendif-labels -Wpointer-arith
-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Winline -Wno-unused-parameter
-ffast-math -MT pulseaudio-ltdl-bind-now.o -MD -MP -MF
.deps/pulseaudio-ltdl-bind-now.Tpo -c -o pulseaudio-ltdl-bind-now.o
`test -f 'daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c' || echo './'`daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c: In function 'pa_ltdl_init':
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:147: warning: ISO C forbids nested functions
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:147: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or
'__attribute__' before '*' token
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:147: error: 'dlopen_loader' undeclared (first
use in this function)
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:147: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reported only once
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:147: error: for each function it appears in.)
daemon/ltdl-bind-now.c:148: warning: ISO C forbids nested functions
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antti J. Huhtala wrote:
>>
>> su, 2008-07-27 kello 11:29 +0100, Marcelo M. Garcia kirjoitti:
>>>
>> Yes, same and similar problems. I haven't tried Skype but when I
>> redirected gtreamer stream to USB headphones instead of the usual
>> loudspeakers of my Athlon64 desktop, Rhythmbox would play one track for
>> a couple of minutes but then sound suddenly died in the middle of the
>> track. I didn't do anything but listened.
>>
>> 'dmesg | grep pulseaudio' shows this:
>>
>> pulseaudio[2696]: segfault at 7f6acfca7330 ip 7f6acfca7330 sp
>> 7fffdd2d5b58 error 14 in pulse-shm-1926128445[7f6ad04e6000+201000]
>>
>> It is high above my grasp of things to even try to guess what this
>> means. It probably is a new quirk, appearing after latest kernel update.
>
> Same here.
> pulseaudio server was not available, bur I run "pulseaudio -D" on command
> line and soud is working now.
>
> my kernel is
>
> kernel-2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Announcement: New repo with updated ClamAV packages for Fedora 8
Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: Also I'm still investigating the legality of building unrar against GPL sources. I think this is not a question of whether the author gives his permission to distribute freeware, but more a question of whether GPL software can be linked to proprietary software. Unrar support is a copyright infringement. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=334371 Rahul -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:47 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 19:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi to all! > > > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > > > So do I get my message back by default? > > > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > > > Greetz, Chris > > yes from fedora-list, no on gmail because gmail blocks it from showing > up and I would presume that googlemail does the same. However Gmail has it in the Sent Mail folder (not that this guarantees it was *received* of course). I set up a Search Folder in Evolution to show my posts in context with the rest of the thread. Works fine. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license >> (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual >> part. > Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or > linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. GPLv2 section 2 says: (emphasis mine) the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose *permissions* for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and *thus* to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a consequence of this. Section 6 says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. IOW, you get the GPL permissions by receiving the program, and upstream distributors can't have restricted any of these permissions. I don't see anything that would stop any of them from granting additional permissions over their own contributions. They can't grant additional permissions over others' contributions, because copyright law prevents that in the absence of explicit permission from the copyright holder. Now, back to section 2, and your favorite 2b. It says that you may modify the program and distribute modified versions of the program under this license, as long as you (among other things) grant the same permissions, subject to the same conditions, to recipients of the modified program and derived versions thereof. Again, it doesn't say you can't grant additional permissions. It doesn't say you have to impose restrictions that stop others from enjoying additional permissions you might have gotten yourself. It doesn't say you can't enjoy any additional permissions you got yourself. Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" Some possible responses: - No, I don't agree. I don't need to agree with it to keep on breathing. - Yes, I may. I have other permissions to breathe, but if they're all revoked, it will be nice to have this one. - Yes, I do agree. It's no big deal, and if I ever need to breathe in without breathing out, I can always use the other permissions I have. - Why, sure, and thanks! I was losing my breath already, all my other permissions to breathe had been revoked! Thanks for saving my life! And so nicely! I don't mind the requirement to "breathe out" at all, it's just reasonable! Of course you understand that I can still accept other permissions that are not subject to this condition, and that if I do, I'll then be entitled to breathe in without breathing out. My lawyer says so, and I have no doubt so does yours. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
OT: Atheros releases free Linux driver for Its 802.11n Devices
Dear all, I have read some good news(I hope), that Atheros will be releasing some new drivers for Atheros based wireless. I hope that it will be better than the ath5k which was ported from OpenBSD and then fixed! How soon can we see this new driver in Fedora? If I am not mistaken it is named ath9k. Thanks in Advance, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Problems with wireless (AR5007E) and standby on notebook
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> >> First of, here is the smolt profile for the machine: >> http://www.smolts.org/client/show/pub_4e28d6bb-5fee-4152-a260-f08ff80399e5 >> >> Check the link there on the Atheros card for info on what I have done >> with it so far. >> >> The gist of the matter is that "as is" if the notebook lid is closed >> (goes to standby) when it is lifted (resumed) it resumes fine, except >> network manager cannot make a successful connection again (keeps >> asking for auth info to the WPA network where I am). >> >> The only solution (not necessarily the right one) that I have found is >> to remove the module and reinsert it (ath_pci) immediately after doing >> NetworkManager successfully swings back into action. >> >> I have open a bug here: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453124 >> >> But this was supposed to be a machine that I am setting up for a >> friend, so I would like to find a resolution to this a soon as >> possible. >> >> > > The driver I think you may find that you want is > madwifi-nr-r3366+ar5007.tar.gz. > Goto website below and read instructions, there are some modules you have to > blacklist. > The driver download madwifi-nr-r3366+ar5007.tar.gz is explained . > I did the compile in Fedora 9 without any problems. > > You will need to have the: > kernel-devel > kernel-headers > gcc > > installed to compile. > Hey Jim, Thanks for the response. The card itself with the drivers from livna-testing. The problem is that it is killing standby/suspend on the machine. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
On Sunday 27 July 2008 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > They just want you to push on their agenda. What do you get out of it? > > Err... I happen to work for the goals I myself believe in. That's > why I co-founded FSFLA, a completely autonomous organization. It just > so happens to pursue the same goals of other FSFes all over the world. > Good for them. What I get out of it is the feeling of correcting > social injustice, of working to make the world a better place. That's > why I do it. I don't expect to get rich or famous or powerful out of > it, but I do hope to be able to look back at my life, or even at the > end of the day, and realize I did something other than surviving, > making money, and thinking of how to make more money. You know, I don't want to be rude or hostile in any way, but I just can't help this feeling that the (noble) reasons you state above are somehow in a disharmony with your behavior (ie. your posts) in this thread. Even if you are genuinely honest about your motives, your actions here (posts in the thread, that is the only thing I know about you) somehow seem counterproductive. For one, I am also a believer in FOSS and all that, am willing to acknowledge appropriate credit to GNU, as a user I can say it is pretty good software. Given that, I could even go that far to accept the name GNU/Linux ;-) , but somehow I still refrain from doing so. Why? Because pro-GNU vocals are pushing for it so much, that it just smells too fishy. If there were a genuine credit to be appropriately given to GNU, I would expect the general public to recognize that spontaneously over time, and start using the name GNU/Linux without anyone talking them into it. After 17+ years of official existence of Linux, and even more of GNU, this has not happened. And I see no relevant explanation of that other than words "social injustice" and some suggestions between the lines that Linus Thorvalds might be involved in some kind of conspiracy against GNU to deprive it of any credit for good work. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and am not inclined to change my usual behavior (of calling the os Linux) based on that. I can even suppose that such social injustice could have happened accidentaly, and survived for more than a decade. It wouldn't be the only one. But trying so hard to correct it raises a lot of doubt in your motives. Being a physicist, I can argue about several such injustices where credit was given where it was not due, and not given where it was due (starting from Einstein himself) that have happend in physics. These things are widely known to exist, but nobody tries this hard to correct them. And I see no point in doing that, either. The person to get the credit is (even usually) not the one that did most of the work, but the one that happened to be at the right place at the right time (and Linus Thorvalds simply got lucky in this sense). Some times even accidentaly. These things happen all the time and in all aspects of social life. People learn this as a process of growing up, and learn to accept injustices as an inevitable part of life. Yet I see nobody trying to correct those as vocally as you. This also begs a question for you: why are you so specific in trying to fix this particular one social injustice? Why not some other too? Which brings me to explaining why I myself am not involved in correcting some injustice and why I have reservation for the motives of people claiming to do so. It's simple --- there are way too many injustices in this world for me to fix, the sheer number would drain all my abilities to do anything about them. And if I go on and pick one injustice while ignoring the rest, I can't help seeing myself as a hypocrit. This defeats the purpose, because a hypocrit is not a person to give lessons about justice to anyone. :-) So I simply go on trying to make a better world in other ways, not by trying to fix the wrongdoings of other people or circumstancial or any other type. All in all, while I do believe you are honestly trying to do something good, the way you act simply invites people to resist you. I have not seen the beginning (and probably the biggest part) of this thread, but I can imagine that a simple comment like "I believe Linux should be actually called GNU/Linux instead, here is a link why" (as OT inside some other thread) could catch my attention in a much more inviting way (I could even get myself to click on the link and read about it) than a thread of this volume, full of dispute, arguments, "I'm right and you're wrong" posts and such. It seems to me that you are trying to work for your beliefs so hard that you end up working against them. Being too vocal has precisely this effect, and is the wrong strategy in my opinion. :-) Finally, I wish to note that all I said in this post is intended to be a friendly comment (although it is possible that you might perceive it differently), so
Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who are not reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the unchanging subject, that the original huge thread was all about a single topic. Although this particular topic would probably be a better fit for fedora-legal, I believe most of its subscribers are sufficiently familiar with Free Software licensing to tell that Les' theory is flawed, whereas many Free Software users in this list operate under the same false assumptions and the influence of FUD against the GPL, so I think this sub-thread will remain more useful here. For those who somehow got the impression that this list was supposed to be limited to technical matters, please update your kill files to ignore this thread as well. On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lawyer can't change what it says. Indeed. But a lawyer you trust could be able to convince you you've misunderstood it. > If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause > actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are requirements for the exercise of the permissions. It doesn't take away any other permissions you might have. That it does is the incorrect assumption that's misleading you. Consider this scenario: John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was developed to be released under the GPL (so these are the headers it carries). John A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c in any other way. Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c would be really useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies gnothing by removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c to her version control system, along with changes to the build machinery to have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then publishes linstall, under the GPLv3+. Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, and sees lib.c show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for his bsdown Free Software program, that he's always distributed under the 3-clause BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a new version of bsdown. Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD license. Please ask your lawyer questions such as: - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing or lib.c automatically terminated? - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from distributing lib.c in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given or implied by the description above, or even by itself under the modified BSD license, without a copy of the GPL? - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from distributing this version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual EULA? then let us know how he justifies the answers. > Would this imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of > GPL-covered components modified to link with proprietary libraries > among people who otherwise have the right to do so AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding dependencies on non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is very common, in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free operating systems. It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be distributed in a form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, without also offering the corresponding sources of the library under the GPL, but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code form, you're covered, and if you can create an object form of the program that does not contain code derived from the library, and then distribute it, you're also covered. Now, if you split things up into a separate library, as a means to circumvent the GPL, and distribute both the library and the GPLed program that you modified so as to depend on it, you might still face a lawsuit on the grounds that the library is actually a derived work, or even that it is part of a single work, and the separation is just a trick to try to circumvent the license. A judge or a jury might actually side with the copyright holder of the program you modified, in this case. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: pulseaudio does not start after kernel update
Antti J. Huhtala wrote: su, 2008-07-27 kello 11:29 +0100, Marcelo M. Garcia kirjoitti: Yes, same and similar problems. I haven't tried Skype but when I redirected gtreamer stream to USB headphones instead of the usual loudspeakers of my Athlon64 desktop, Rhythmbox would play one track for a couple of minutes but then sound suddenly died in the middle of the track. I didn't do anything but listened. 'dmesg | grep pulseaudio' shows this: pulseaudio[2696]: segfault at 7f6acfca7330 ip 7f6acfca7330 sp 7fffdd2d5b58 error 14 in pulse-shm-1926128445[7f6ad04e6000+201000] It is high above my grasp of things to even try to guess what this means. It probably is a new quirk, appearing after latest kernel update. Same here. pulseaudio server was not available, bur I run "pulseaudio -D" on command line and soud is working now. my kernel is kernel-2.6.25.11-97.fc9.i686 Andrea -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:51:29 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 27.07.2008, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Craig White: > > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 19:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi to all! > > > > > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > > > > > So do I get my message back by default? > > > > > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > > > > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > > > > > Greetz, Chris > > > > yes from fedora-list, no on gmail because gmail blocks it from showing > > up and I would presume that googlemail does the same. > > > > Craig > > > > Thank you! That sounds interesting. I'll check it up... It marks them as "read", also when using IMAP. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning
On Sunday 27 July 2008 05:03:32 pm Adil Drissi wrote: > Hi, i reinstalled fedora before reading your message. I did it in my way i > removed the two windows partitions in the installation process. Now i have > in the file system some 24GB. I have another problem now. I trying to > install gcc because i didn't choose to do so during the installation > process. I am using the menu "applications --> add remove software". After > that i have an alert box saying that an other program is blocking access to > information about software. Do you have an idea about how i can resolve > that? After you login usually Fedora checks to see if there are updates available. During that time, the package manager locks its database to avoid conflict. If you are trying to "Add / Remove Software" at that moment, you'll get that message. What you could do is wait few minutes for the process that checks for updates to complete, and then try again. TL -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
On Sunday 27 July 2008 03:54:44 pm Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 09:03 -0400, TechList wrote: > > Hello, > > I used to use printconf-tui -Xexport and printconf-tui -Ximport to copy > > printer configuration from one machine to another so that for machines on > > the same network I only have to set printer by hand once with > > system-config-printer. > > It seems that this feature no longer exists in Fedora 8. What is the way > > to copy printer configuration now ? should I just copy everything > > under /etc/cups ? > > > > Thanks for any help. > > TLP > > Are they all using the same printer. If they are and they are on the > same lan no copying is needed. All the machines will use the printer > configured with cupsd.conf on one of them. The client.conf makes that > happen. I don't understand that. Could you elaborate ? Right now there are two situation. One situation, is that I have 1 machine that acts as a print server with the printer physically connected to it (e.g via USB port). Say I have 5 other computers on the LAN, I have to configure printer on each of those 5 computer to use the same print server, right ? How do I avoid doing "system-config-printer" five times on those machine ? A second situation is that the printer sits on the network (e.g a printer with ethernet and HP Jet Direct protocol). If I have multiple computer that tries to use that printer, how do I set it up once and just copy the configuration among those computers ? On each of the case, I use to be able to just configure printer once with system-config-printer, then do something like "printconf-tui -Xexport > settings.xml", copy around the settings.xml file, and do "printconf-tui -Ximport < settings.xml" for the other computers. Thanks. TL -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning
Hi, I retarted my machine the problem seem fixed. Thanks --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Adil Drissi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Adil Drissi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning > To: "For users of Fedora" , "Aaron Konstam" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 9:03 PM > Hi, i reinstalled fedora before reading your message. I did > it in my way i removed the two windows partitions in the > installation process. Now i have in the file system some > 24GB. I have another problem now. I trying to install gcc > because i didn't choose to do so during the installation > process. I am using the menu "applications --> add > remove software". After that i have an alert box saying > that an other program is blocking access to information > about software. Do you have an idea about how i can resolve > that? > > Thanks > > --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Aaron Konstam > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Aaron Konstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "For users of > Fedora" > > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 8:04 PM > > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:08 -0700, Adil Drissi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have winXP installed in my laptop. > > > > > > When installing it i choose to create a new > partition > > (D:) that i was intending to use for fedora8. > > > > > > After installing fedora 8, now i have both > operating > > systems windows uses c: (20GB) i have D: accessible > from > > windows that i can format to either FAT or NTFS, but > fedora > > only uses the remaining space so now i cannot run any > > program, even mozilla does not work. > > > > > > So my question is if there is a way to increase > > fedora's partition, knowing that i have access to > c: but > > not to d: from fedora. > > > I'm using fedora8 because i'm intending > to use > > a software that only runs in version 8. > > > > > > Thank you for advance > > To have fedora and WinXP on the same machine you do > not > > create a partition D:. > > When you install F8 you can re-format that partition > as a > > ext3 > > p[partition as well as reallocate the space to handle > the > > F8 system. > > partd and gpartd can be used in Fedora to re-size > > partitions also. > > > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning
Hi, i reinstalled fedora before reading your message. I did it in my way i removed the two windows partitions in the installation process. Now i have in the file system some 24GB. I have another problem now. I trying to install gcc because i didn't choose to do so during the installation process. I am using the menu "applications --> add remove software". After that i have an alert box saying that an other program is blocking access to information about software. Do you have an idea about how i can resolve that? Thanks --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Aaron Konstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Aaron Konstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "For users of Fedora" > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 8:04 PM > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:08 -0700, Adil Drissi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have winXP installed in my laptop. > > > > When installing it i choose to create a new partition > (D:) that i was intending to use for fedora8. > > > > After installing fedora 8, now i have both operating > systems windows uses c: (20GB) i have D: accessible from > windows that i can format to either FAT or NTFS, but fedora > only uses the remaining space so now i cannot run any > program, even mozilla does not work. > > > > So my question is if there is a way to increase > fedora's partition, knowing that i have access to c: but > not to d: from fedora. > > I'm using fedora8 because i'm intending to use > a software that only runs in version 8. > > > > Thank you for advance > To have fedora and WinXP on the same machine you do not > create a partition D:. > When you install F8 you can re-format that partition as a > ext3 > p[partition as well as reallocate the space to handle the > F8 system. > partd and gpartd can be used in Fedora to re-size > partitions also. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: F9 - cups - windows shared printer
Craig White wrote: if you go back to my original post - nowhere did I ever make mention of Firefox, nor did Andy who confirmed the problem. well, in your own words 'leap to conclusions do we?', seems to include you in that 'we'. i do not find that i made reference to which post. therefore, for me to include firefox, it would have been from a later post that you made and in which you failed to mention evolution. if version of firefox that i am currently using; Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008071611 Red Hat/3.0.1-1.el5 Firefox/3.0.1 had time stamps in history log, i would be able to give you an exact time that you could relate to your presumption. tho i will admit that while looking back thru history, i did miss one of the hits related to suse. so i did err in not noting it. or what ever was page relating to it, did not seem relevant. maybe it mentioned evolution and was there before i put firefox in search. as for ubuntu, i can not say. for sure if it was among hits, i did not look at it. I only brought Firefox into the picture because the problem returned actually, it was brought on by your evasiveness in not mentioning what all you had tried to print with. but if you were going to google anything, why not google the relevant keywords... googleing for; cups AuthInfoRequired negotiate }> From: Andy Eager tpg.com.au> }> Subject: F9 - cups - windows shared printer }> Newsgroups: gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.general }> Date: 2008-07-24 12:14:43 GMT (1 day, 10 hours and 58 minutes ago) which was in this thread. http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1028522&postcount=1 reveals it did not happen with ubuntu client and fedora server, but did with fedora client and fedora server. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5449368 which, all in all, does cause me to believe as i have all along, that it is related to cups and how it is handling authorization and a reason of why i suggested adding 'user' to 'lp' group. which may have been a temporary 'cure', 'hack', 'solution' or what ever one cares to call it. what ever it is called, if it worked, it would be a way to get printing done until source is debugged and corrected. along with, possiply, another pointer to where problem is in source. -- tc,hago. g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy
Ed Greshko wrote: Oh, goodie Another thread to filter... at least it is only a '+' click with thunderbird. :o) -- tc,hago. g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Fedora 8 and partitioning
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:08 -0700, Adil Drissi wrote: > Hi, > > I have winXP installed in my laptop. > > When installing it i choose to create a new partition (D:) that i was > intending to use for fedora8. > > After installing fedora 8, now i have both operating systems windows uses c: > (20GB) i have D: accessible from windows that i can format to either FAT or > NTFS, but fedora only uses the remaining space so now i cannot run any > program, even mozilla does not work. > > So my question is if there is a way to increase fedora's partition, knowing > that i have access to c: but not to d: from fedora. > I'm using fedora8 because i'm intending to use a software that only runs in > version 8. > > Thank you for advance To have fedora and WinXP on the same machine you do not create a partition D:. When you install F8 you can re-format that partition as a ext3 p[partition as well as reallocate the space to handle the F8 system. partd and gpartd can be used in Fedora to re-size partitions also. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Export and Import Printer configuration
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 09:03 -0400, TechList wrote: > Hello, > I used to use printconf-tui -Xexport and printconf-tui -Ximport to copy > printer configuration from one machine to another so that for machines on the > same network I only have to set printer by hand once with > system-config-printer. > It seems that this feature no longer exists in Fedora 8. What is the way to > copy printer configuration now ? should I just copy everything > under /etc/cups ? > > Thanks for any help. > TLP > Are they all using the same printer. If they are and they are on the same lan no copying is needed. All the machines will use the printer configured with cupsd.conf on one of them. The client.conf makes that happen. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Minor GNOME and KDE menu annoyance
On Sunday 27 July 2008 12:24:19 Tim wrote: > The new menus were tedious and slow to use, in even more annoying ways > than the old menus. Who thought that click, wait, menus sliding out of > site to be replaced with a submenu moving into the box, was going to be > a useful thing to do? It's as bad as the browse every folder in a new > pop-up window that the *old* MS Windows and Amiga Workbench interfaces > used. > You soon develop a different way of working. Now I use the search facility (if I know or can guess the name) or browse through the menu to find the application the first time I need it. Once it's found I elect to either add it to 'favourites' - the front page of the menu add it to the panel - if it's something I want instantly available, like konsole or kwrite add it to the desktop - which I generally don't do, as I like a clean desktop. > While it's often touted that KDE gives you configurability that Gnome > doesn't. I've generally found Gnome's defaults not too bad, Fine. Each to his own. Anne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Problem with Fedora on Live USB
Where to run "syslinux -s /dev/sdX1" ? adios KSH SHRM People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care... 2008/7/27 Mikkel L. Ellertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ksh shrm wrote: > >> I used that liveusb-creator-2.7 >> >> adios >> >> KSH SHRM >> >> Try running "syslinux -s /dev/sdX1" replacing X with the proper drive > letter for you pen drive. > > Mikkel > -- > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? > > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Wireless mouse no longer works
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 07:17:05AM -0500, Mike Chambers wrote: > > After latest updates (last day or two), my wireless mouse quit working. > Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse combo are the devices, as keyboard > works fine, mouse does not. Wired ps2 mouse works fine (currently using > it). > > Anyone else noticed? Check your update logs for Bluetooth package changes and config? Batteries? -- T o m M i t c h e l l Looking for a place to hang my hat. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Last kernel Update (2.6.25.11-97) breaks wlan (iwl4965)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Björn Persson wrote: I guess the firmware package hadn't yet reached the mirror you used when you upgraded the kernel. Later, when you ran yum update, the firmware package was there, or maybe Yum chose another mirror. The problem is that the iwl4965 firmware package was out about a week before the kernel package appeared, so if the kernel was on a mirror, the firmware package would be on that mirror as well. I think it is actually a bug in PackageKit. Michael Young-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
Am Sonntag, den 27.07.2008, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Craig White: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 19:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi to all! > > > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > > > So do I get my message back by default? > > > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > > > Greetz, Chris > > yes from fedora-list, no on gmail because gmail blocks it from showing > up and I would presume that googlemail does the same. > > Craig > Thank you! That sounds interesting. I'll check it up... -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
yum glibc-common problem
Earlier this week I attempted a 'yum update' on one of my Fedora 9
systems and it failed. I have two Fedora 9 systems behind my
firewall and the firewall machine itself runs an earlier version of
Fedora communicating with the net via DSL.
The yum failure was because I could not download
glibc-common-2.8-8.i386 (22386485 bytes).
I got the following error messages:
Downloading Packages:
http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 12] Timeout:
Trying other mirror.
(1/3): glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm | 11 MB 00:00
http://linux.nssl.noaa.gov/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 4] Socket Error: timed out
Trying other mirror.
(1/3): glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm | 11 MB 00:00
http://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/linux/distributions/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 4] Socket Error: timed out
Trying other mirror.
(1/3): glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm | 11 MB 00:00
http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 4] Socket Error: timed out
Trying other mirror.
ftp://fedora.bu.edu/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm: [Errno 4]
IOError: [Errno ftp error] Requested Range Not Satisfiable
Trying other mirror.
(1/3): glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm | 11 MB 00:00
http://fedora.mirrors.tds.net/pub/fedora/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 4] Socket Error: timed out
Trying other mirror.
(1/3): glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm | 11 MB 00:00
http://archive.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm:
[Errno 4] Socket Error: timed out
Trying other mirror.
ETC.
So, after a couple of attempts ('yum clean all; yum update', etc.),
I attempted to update my other Fedora 9 system - same problem.
I increased the yum timeout in yum.conf - same problem.
So, I googled about and found this link:
http://www.linux-faqs.com/archive/redhat/fedora-list/2005-August/msg04665.html
This is exactly the problem I am currently facing.
I thus tried the various suggestions in the link's email trail.
wget:
hung after a couple of MBytes - about 6%.
curl -C - -v --retry 10 --remote-time --remote-name --location
hangs at 6% or sometimes after repeated attempts switching
mirrors it would hang at 52%.
command-line ftp client:
ftp://ftp.software.umn.edu/linux/fedora/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm
ftp://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm
hang after a couple of MBytes.
firefox ftp:
hangs at 6% and sometimes at 52%
firefox http:
hangs at 6% and sometimes at 52%
rsync:
rsync -av
or
rsync -azv
rsync://
rsync.mirrorservice.org:873/download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/i386/glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm/tmp
nothing seemed to happen
At this point I tried some of the above download mechanisms directly on
my firewall machine - who knows... Anyway, none of those tried on the
firewall worked either.
So, I assumed something was wrong with my firewall machine, so
I re-installed Fedora on it, upgrading from an earlier version of
Fedora to a later version (complete re-install) but not Fedora 9.
After the new install, still same problem.
But I did notice that on the firewall when I did a 'yum update'
it tried a number of mirror machines attempting to download its
update version of the glib-common rpm, but if finally succeeded.
Its version of the glib-common rpm is about 5 MB smaller than the
current Fedora 9 version.
I also tried to download files larger than the glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm
from the mirrors, for example R-2.7.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm which is 26MB.
Well, this downloads just fine.
During all my attempts, from the firewall machine bouncing
between mirrors using 'curl' I did get one download of the
glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm file but because it took many
invocations of 'curl' I am not sure I trust it to be all there.
Its the correct number of bytes but I don't trust the content
of the file so I am certainly not going to update any machines
with it until I can verify the files content.
So, my questions:
Why can I not download the glibc-common file?
Does my ISP have an issue?
What could possibly be stopping the download when the file
name is glibc-common?
The time it happened as documented by the above link was there
a solution?
Does yum have a sha1 checksum that I can check against the
one glibc-common-2.8-8.i386.rpm file that I did get so that
I can see if its ok? If not, can someone post such a checksum for me?
Thanks.
Richard
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 19:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi to all! > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > So do I get my message back by default? > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > Greetz, Chris yes from fedora-list, no on gmail because gmail blocks it from showing up and I would presume that googlemail does the same. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sunday 27 July 2008 14:09:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi to all! > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > So do I get my message back by default? > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > Greetz, Chris I read your mail just now :) so I received it! -- Armin -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
Am Sonntag, den 27.07.2008, 19:26 +0200 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:09:01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi to all! > > > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > > > So do I get my message back by default? > > > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > > > Please excuse my english ;-) > > Those are questions you could answer yourself. > Log in at > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > check your list settings, and look at the archives. > > Yes, your message has reached the list. And yes, by default you are also a > recipient of your own message. An option you can disable. > Thanx. I'm gonna check it... Greetz -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Last kernel Update (2.6.25.11-97) breaks wlan (iwl4965)
Björn Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I guess the firmware package hadn't yet reached the mirror you used > when you upgraded the kernel. Later, when you ran yum update, the > firmware package was there, or maybe Yum chose another mirror. Thank you for the explanation! But shouldn't the tool (yum or packagekit) give me at least an warining if he can't resolve the dependencies? I just wonder that this can happen without notifying the user that something is missing. best wishes, Björn -- Support Free Software, join FSFE's Fellowship (http://www.fsfe.org) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:09:01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi to all! > > I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. > > So do I get my message back by default? > > Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... > > Please excuse my english ;-) Those are questions you could answer yourself. Log in at https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list check your list settings, and look at the archives. Yes, your message has reached the list. And yes, by default you are also a recipient of your own message. An option you can disable. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Do I get a copy of my mail to fedora-list?
Hi to all! I'm new to this list and I wonder if my mail reaches the list or not. So do I get my message back by default? Because I already sent a mail, but didn't get it from the list... Please excuse my english ;-) Greetz, Chris -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Minor GNOME and KDE menu annoyance
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 02:27 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Sorry Tim, I thought you were one of those complaining about KDE4 > > compared to KDE3, when in fact you're arguing for Gnome over KDE. > > That's fine, but it's a different discussion. > > There's a bit of both. I definitely think Gnome is better than KDE, I > think 4 is even worse than 3. Even when they iron the bugs out 4, the > design philosophy is still nuts. It's just bad UI. see that's the great thing about choice... I think everybody's UI is flawed and it's only the choice about whose UI flaws you feel most comfortable with. Windows and Macintosh are no exceptions here. KDE is clearly trying to break the boundaries of things we are used to and it's way too soon to tell if KDE-4 will succeed but I commend them for trying. One thing I have noticed is that visually, the KDE-4.0.99 stuff in updates-testing is visually sharp and appealing. Obviously it still lacks some important functionality but I can see some improvements. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Fedora 8 and partitioning
Hi, I have winXP installed in my lapop. When installing it i choose to create a new partition (D:) that i was intending to use for fedora8. After installing fedora 8, now i have both operating systems windows uses c: (20GB) i have D: accessible from windows that i can format to either FAT or NTFS, but fedora only uses the remaining space so now i cannot run any program, even mozilla does not work. So my question is if there is a way to increase fedora's partition, knowing that i have access to c: but not to d: from fedora. I'm using fedora8 because i'm intending to use a software that only runs in version 8. Thank you for advance -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Fedora 8 and partitioning
Hi, I have winXP installed in my lapop. When installing it i choose to create a new partition (D:) that i was intending to use for fedora8. After installing fedora 8, now i have both operating systems windows uses c: (20GB) i have D: accessible from windows that i can format to either FAT or NTFS, but fedora only uses the remaining space so now i cannot run any program, even mozilla does not work. So my question is if there is a way to increase fedora's partition, knowing that i have access to c: but not to d: from fedora. I'm using fedora8 because i'm intending to use a software that only runs in version 8. Thank you for advance -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Minor GNOME and KDE menu annoyance
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Sorry Tim, I thought you were one of those complaining about KDE4 > compared to KDE3, when in fact you're arguing for Gnome over KDE. > That's fine, but it's a different discussion. There's a bit of both. I definitely think Gnome is better than KDE, I think 4 is even worse than 3. Even when they iron the bugs out 4, the design philosophy is still nuts. It's just bad UI. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
