not a DD, so it isn't like I have any
authority to do otherwise. :)
and we can at least use it as a private developer-access machine in
the meantime.
Indeed.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
, I've never had any issues with either
distcc+crossgcc--- which I've tested extensively--- or QEMU. But
forcing the use of real hardware wherever possible means (a) you know
for sure, and (b) you have to keep your real hardware maintained. Those
seem like good things.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
Anthony:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people
remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here?
No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft
Glenn:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Bill Gatliff writes:
Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft.
Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner
is not being deprived of any property
. And that's obviously a topic that plenty of
people in the Debian crowd have an opinion on. :)
I don't see it as hostility, I see it as an attempt to enforce the GPL.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
saying you
filed a report against x.y; x.y+1 has just been released, could you
please try it and see if it addresses your issue?
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I justify
my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting
Debian's interests.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are stable.
What, with the lead promoter and configuration manager on record as
saying stability is not an objective.
[And as someone who maintains kernels for a living, I can tell you with
no uncertainty that he's meeting that non-objective really, really well.]
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL
the library.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license). Thus, I don't see a problem here.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But yes, GPL is more restrictive than CDDL.
More accurately, the GPL preserves more end user rights than CDDL.
That's hardly restrictive--- especially if you're an end user.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Thomas:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the
major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package,
I don't have to provide source code for anything other than
not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual
property http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml.
http://bits.netizen.com.au/licenses/NOSL/nosl.txt
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
emacs. Aaah, yes
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Hardly even a
noob, in fact).
Thanks!
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Not at the same time, of course. ;-)
--
Bill Gatliff
Embedded Linux *is* user friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16 matches
Mail list logo
