Rich Felker wrote:
>> The issue is that kernel developers have not stepped up to enforce the
>> GPL when companies infringe.
Rich, upon reading the above, I wonder if perhaps you missed the URL
that I posted earlier in this thread:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/2012/may/29/compliance/
Specificall
Hey guys,
what about this patch? Is there anyone who can have a look at it?
Greets,
Manuel
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:08:42PM +0200, Manuel Zerpies wrote:
> From bfd90cc05ffdd1b1582493b212f1b42f49e49429 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Manuel Zerpies
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:36:15 +0200
> Su
On 10.09.2012 19:31, Manuel Zerpies wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> what about this patch? Is there anyone who can have a look at it?
>
[]
>> -bb_perror_msg(filename);
>> +bb_perror_msg("%s", filename);
Please stop fixing a non-issue. This GCC warning is wrong.
Th
On 9/10/2012 11:46 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
On 10.09.2012 19:31, Manuel Zerpies wrote:
Hey guys,
what about this patch? Is there anyone who can have a look at it?
[]
- bb_perror_msg(filename);
+ bb_perror_msg("%s", filename);
Please stop fixing
On 9/10/2012 12:36 PM, Michael Conrad wrote:
On 9/10/2012 11:46 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
On 10.09.2012 19:31, Manuel Zerpies wrote:
Hey guys,
what about this patch? Is there anyone who can have a look at it?
[]
-bb_perror_msg(filename);
+bb_perror_msg("%s", filenam
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 10:05:04PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote at 23:52 (EDT) on Saturday:
> > some developers don't want to enforce, some do, and many don't care
> > either way. saying "the kernel developers are actively working to
> > undermine enforcement" is overly bro
On 10.09.2012 20:36, Michael Conrad wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 11:46 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
-bb_perror_msg(filename);
+bb_perror_msg("%s", filename);
>> Please stop fixing a non-issue. This GCC warning is wrong.
>> This has been discussed several times, and exac
