Re: [NEW] shells/dash (correction)
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:29 +0400, "Mike Korbakov" wrote: > sorry first link must be > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=nl&apropos=0&sektion=1&manpath=FreeBSD+8.2-RELEASE&format=html > in which we can see: > > STANDARDS > The nl utility conforms to IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 (``POSIX.1''). > > HISTORY > The nl utility first appeared in AT&T System V Release 2 UNIX. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure nl predates cat -n.
Re: License question
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:22 -0300, "Marcos Laufer" wrote: > > Marc Espie wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:30:56PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:13:34AM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote: > >>> > I ran into a module on cpan that the author says is licensed as: > > You can use this module freely. (Someone complained this is too vague. > So, more precisely: do whatever you want with it, but be warned that > terrible things will happen to you if you use it badly, like for > sending spam, or ...?) > > >>> Well, he's not actually forbidding any kind of use, does he ? > >>> > >>> So it's free. > >>> > >> I disagree. He does not grant permission to modify, and he does not > >> grant permission to redistribute. That's not free enough. > >> > > > > Sorry, I should have put a huge smiley at the end of my comment. > > What I meant was what Steve Andre said, that this "bad things will happen > > to > > you" is of course not legally binding, but yeah, that licence lacks a lot > > to be a free licence. > > > > > > > > > And what about the ¨do whatever you want with it¨ part? > > Isn´t that permission to do whatever you want with it, like modify it , > redistribute it, etc? I am no copyright lawyer (thank God), but to me this is still vague. "do whatever you want" could be subject to interpretation and would call into question the author's 'intent'. Better are explicit permissions than vague statements. But still much less vague than any of the GPL licenses. :)
Re: update blows up
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:14 -0400, "Philippe Meunier" wrote: > Marc Espie wrote: > >Fact: half snapshots are FUCKING ANNOYING. I don't know a working solution > >for this issue. The bandwidth of the T1 line is an issue. The disk usage > >on the servers is an issue. A full solution would need to solve both. > > Let me suggest a partial solution that might get close. Here's a list
Re: NEW: textproc/gsed
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:15:25 +0200, "Stefan Sperling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote: > > > >| >And what/who needs this? > > I do. Not because I want to write non-portable sed, but because I > often come across scripts I want to use that use GNU sed features. > > I really don't see the point of your argument. > There is a port and there is a maintainer for it. > Where's your problem? I am not a developer and in no way speak officially for the project, but my opinion follows; The problem is this is a BSD project and unless it is something that is very important to have (and gsed may very well qualify) the project should be kept free from as much GPL'ed software as possible. I feel that one of the goals of the project should be to rid the base install of all GPL'ed software and eventually the entire ports tree as well. I apologize in advance if this starts a BSD/GPL flamewar. Not my intention. And since this is a "BSD" mailing list I see no reason it *should* cause one.
Re: Java ports: source vs. binary?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:13 +0200, "Martin Schröder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install > > > binaries as a default. > > > > And in 5 years noone will make source available. > > Better: Install the source where possible (and warn if there is no > source) but don't install from source as a default (and make this > choice configurable), and use binaries where provided, thus speeding > installation. > > I doubt that the typical eclipse user wants to compile eclipse from > source. :-) There's a 'reason' the community is called 'Open Source'. This movement towards binaries defeats the entire purpose. The typical user shouldn't have to build from source, anyway. That is not what is being proposed, as I understand it. The typical user should never have to build from source. That's why there are those package things so many people like to ignore. -- Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended window manager for OpenBSD
On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:12:15 +0200 (CEST), "Johan Zandin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jim Razmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll second ion! Why did I ever waste screen space with other window > > managers.?.?. > > I agree. And I really like the start of the Ion Manifesto: > (http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/) > >So-called "modern desktop environments" are totally unusable > > > I think recognizing the problems with the mainstream solution is > a brilliant start to create something better. And disrespect for > obsolete concepts is always a good thing! I think anybody who doesn't use ion should be KILLED! . . . . . . . sorry, I've had a few :-) -- Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
