Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
The same asnow with other words?, wouldn it be possible to repost peoples mail in gen-dev?. I mean instead of leting people send mail to gen-int we kidnapped the mail and send it to gen-dev so that all using gen-dev gets the hole conversion, and does only subscribe to gen-int only get to se posts from pre-aproved mail-acont, wouldn't that work?, or am I missing something fundamental?. /EKG On 23 May 2017 23:05, "Kent Fredric" wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:32:03 +0000 > Erik Närström wrote: > > > I'snt the idea of creating a new mailing list to let gentoo-dev be > > mesy?, in that case we could simply redirect all non-aproved posts > > from gen-int to gen-dev. > > I mean, messy in the sense you'd have replies, but no obvious parent > for the replies, so people who wanted to read the whole thread > including external submissions would need to mentally piece together 2 > independent mailing lists. > > Though, I guess my email client might work as expected being subscribed > to both lists. > > Just anyone who signs up to only gentoo-dev will get a lot of confusing > arguments :) >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list
I'snt the idea of creating a new mailing list to let gentoo-dev be mesy?, in that case we could simply redirect all non-aproved posts from gen-int to gen-dev. /EKG On 23 May 2017 22:04, "Kent Fredric" wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2017 21:31:18 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > - public (open subscription), initially we may optionally copy all > > subscribers from gentoo-dev so that they do not miss discussion, > > What would be the result if somebody replied to a g-dev-internal ML > without permission? > > I think there should be something in place other than sending it > to /dev/null , but I can't think of any good approach that doesn't make > g-dev messier as a result. > > > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] OT Copyright -> meson.eclass third draft
I'am far from a legal scholar, i do know that one of the main driver behind extending the copyright to death of author +70yrs was so Disney would continue to control miky mouse, or atlest tahat is the folk lore on the topic. So that make it seem like even if gentoo owns the material they only do so until 70yrs after the author deaths. Mening year of writing is surpluses, atlest considring us copyright. /EKG ps. Please tell me if I only generate noise. On 5 May 2017 20:39, "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2017 14:31:17 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:20:43 + > > Erik Närström wrote: > > > > > I'snt copyright deth of author +70yrs? > > > > Yes for work that is copyright to say you or me. Something copyright > > to an immortal entity I believe is different. Even if Gentoo ended, > > not sure that is the same as a person dying. We essential give up our > > copyright when you put Gentoo's copyright on there. I think it would > > have to include a persons name for the death term to apply. > > > > I believe 95-120 years is the duration. > > https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf > > > > That is for the United States, not the world. Seems most others go with > the author aspect. But I am not sure how that carries over to entities. > At least in the US, this stuff that is copyright Gentoo is bound to > those terms. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_term > > OT > Corporate personhood is one of the most contentious things in the US. > IMHO it was the reason for the civil war not slavery etc. If it was > slavery no need for civil rights. It was about coporate personhood. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood > > This amendment, super abstract. Not sure software exists this abstract > in nature > > "As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth > Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections > to corporations. " > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_ > United_States_Constitution > > > > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] meson.eclass third draft
Ok, that makes sense. Are from sweden where you can't give up copyright, so didn't even think considerd that it wasn't tied to a person. Thanks /EKG On 5 May 2017 20:33, "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:20:43 + > Erik Närström wrote: > > > I'snt copyright deth of author +70yrs? > > Yes for work that is copyright to say you or me. Something copyright to > an immortal entity I believe is different. Even if Gentoo ended, not > sure that is the same as a person dying. We essential give up our > copyright when you put Gentoo's copyright on there. I think it would > have to include a persons name for the death term to apply. > > I believe 95-120 years is the duration. > https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] meson.eclass third draft
I'snt copyright deth of author +70yrs? On 5 May 2017 20:06, "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:18:58 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > On Fri, 05 May 2017 18:55:41 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On pią, 2017-05-05 at 10:35 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > # Copyright 2017 Gentoo Foundation > > > > > > Aren't we supposed to use the full range of years here? > > > > It applies when something comes into existing. If this eclass did not > > exist in 2016, a copyright for that year would not be correct. > > > > This maybe different for ebuilds, as that could be considered derived > > from the original ebuild. First one ever written. I am not sure the > > same applies to eclasses, but it might. In that case the year of the > > first eclass would be correct. > > > > I guess it is safe to always use the oldest year. > > It may not be good to use the oldest year. Rather the first year > something came into existence. > > "If the copyright duration depends on the date of first publication > and the year given in the notice is earlier than the > actual publication date, protection may be shortened by > beginning the term on the date in the notice" > https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf > > That means if you author something in 2017, and put down say 1999-2017. > You are starting at 1999, and not 2017. Losing 16 years for no reason. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-6.x status inquiry
Portage pulls in gcc-5.4 when i run 'emerge -p pdftk'. /ekg On 4 May 2017 09:29, wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2017, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: >> >>> As I said few times, we should dump gcc-5 sooner than later and any >>> software that does not build with gcc-6 should be p.masked and dropped >>> from the tree if there isn't a nice fix for it. >>> >> Just a heads-up, that p.mask list would happen to include firefox and >> thunderbird right now. >> > And pdftk. It needs gcj, and has no usable alternatives. > > What should I keep in my system to continue to use (and maybe recompile) > pdftk? > > Andrey > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-6.x status inquiry
? Firefox compiles for me, i am unstable amd64. /ekg On 3 May 2017 20:02, "Ian Stakenvicius" wrote: > On 03/05/17 01:58 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: > >> On 5/3/17 6:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> I am asking about this because I have been asked to look into >>> packaging software that has a specific requirement for >=gcc-6 in order >>> to build [1]. >>> >> >> As I said few times, we should dump gcc-5 sooner than later and any >> software that does not build with gcc-6 should be p.masked and dropped >> from the tree if there isn't a nice fix for it. >> > > Just a heads-up, that p.mask list would happen to include firefox and > thunderbird right now. > >
