the credits, they can pay me for the
privilege, or live with only the credit they deserve for their work.
People who can't live with my credits on work they sell to others should
pay.
Look at how many companies ripped off squid.
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have
The above
involves sacrificing some very prominent visibility to the users of
those that do accept the more onerous licensing terms, in the hope of
garnering greater penetration, utilisation and development of the code
in the long term.
> Look at how many companies ripped off squid.
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have not changed their
license to prevent this recurring in the future. I wonder why?
ifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct
license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it
(i.e., put it in the public domain).
If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the
changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invaria
Op wo 23-04-2003, om 17:00 schreef Hans Reiser:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> >
> >Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could
> >apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
> >document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover te
able to the original author. [...]
(Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original
author of the software)
> Why is this a problem? [...]
At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't
mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the
m
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could
apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like
discomforted.
Our current activities on the GFDL involve writing up a list of
objections to the license, to present to the FSF. We are doing this
before removing the software from Debian. I think this shows great
respect for Mr. Stallman and the FSF that we are spending a fair amount
of time forming
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:44, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:25:11 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> > for their actors.
>
> Now imagine if ls or grep wanted the list of contributors to
> be s
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:07:19AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Well, I certainly hope he doesn't want the kind of visibility that the
> studio and producer have. Can you imagine it?
>
> # mkreiserfs
>
> [clear screen]
>
>
>
>
> N A M E S Y S
[...]
Dude,
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:25:11 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> for their actors.
Now imagine if ls or grep wanted the list of contributors to
be scrolled past, slowly, on every invocation, and insisted t
author.
Thank you for making your position clear. If it is your intention that
the license of your software be understood to prevent third parties from
removing this advertising material from the output of the program, I'm
sure that Debian will be more than willing to comply with your wishes
Florian Weimer wrote:
> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> > for their actors.
>
> So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs?
>
> In this case, your analogy is wrong. The message does not give
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for
> > their actors.
>
> 30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are
> only just started. Only the f
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for
> their actors.
30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are
only just started. Only the first few names get seen, and those are the ones
that a
ner,
complain on a mailing list, and so on. Fine. Hopefully an
accommodation can be found.
If, on the other hand, you assert a legal right to be shown respect
in a way that you determine, then it becomes clear that your work
is not DFSG-free and so not distributable by Debian.
> ReiserFS wi
> ["About" menu item]
> First time users go to them expecting to find out what
> the program does, and instead they get the name of the author and remain
> just as puzzled about what the program itself is for as they were
> before. I hate them.
I see.. :) It has become a GUI idiom though, so most
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> for their actors.
So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs?
In this case, your analogy is wrong. The message does not give proper
credit to developers (actors), b
Jarno Elonen wrote:
the frontend's "About" box?
"About" buttons are an abomination, like the term open source, they
gutlessly pretend to be what they are not in an attempt to please by
dissembling.;-) First time users go to them expecting to find out what
the program does, and instead they g
s a long credits & thanks list in a very uncomfortable
place such as startup, can a free software license really *prohibit
modifying the code* so that the listing is moved behind a switch,
"about" menu item or such?
IMHO, it is reasonable to demand that all credits must be "e
e credits in
documentation or trying to take the credit for ReiserFS tools.
The problem now seems to be that:
if the program outputs a long credits & thanks list in a very uncomfortable
place such as startup, can a free software license really *prohibit
modifying the code* so that the
Hi Hans.
How about setting the "feelings towards Stallman" issue aside for a moment an
focusing on the problem of how Debian handles the credits in you program.
I'm not sure whether, for example, moving the Credits to sponsors from being
displayed by the programs themselves to the man page and /
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:08, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge
> him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who
> use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits
> who are discomforted.
>
> As fa
ReiserFS distributed
for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions
from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a
matter of respect that is due the author.
ReiserFS will be converting to the Gnu Free Doc License for its
documentation.
I look fo
This is not for -devel!
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
H just read at Slashdot that Thomson and Fraunhofer have changed their
minds and now want to charge for mp3 decoders, too (?).
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/27/1626241.shtml?tid=155
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/openletter.ht
+0200
+++ new/copyright-file 2002-08-20 23:04:41.0 +0200
@@ -164,6 +164,11 @@
print "W: $pkg $type: copyright-does-not-refer-to-common-license-file
$1\n";
}
+if (m,(under )?(the )?(same )?(terms )?as Perl itself,i &&
+!(m,usr/share/common-licenses/, || m,usr/share/
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
> to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
> software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
> data is software or documentation in the first pla
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
> "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
> Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
>that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
>
>I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
>the license are not exerci
irely free
software. We hold everything to that definition currently, though there
clearly is not a consensus that we should continue doing so.
Debian has no concept of non-software and our only metric of freeness is
the DFSG. The GNU FDL fails to do this. We are hypocrites to make an
exceptio
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > > if I'm
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
> clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exer
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the
under version 1.1 of the GNU FDL
with no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections is clearly and plainly
DFSG-free.
A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
"Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
Most people on debian-legal agree that
shell:
> >
> > 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
> > there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections. Note that your
> > license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
> > Texts and Inva
at is not true of the GFDL because "The GFDL
says that invariant sections must cover only topics of how
the work relates to the authors or publishers."
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF
> some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this
> langu
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
> > that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
> >
down before moving things into an
> area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?
Well, if you insist ;-)
Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free
Documentation License is "Free") the whole purpose of the common license
area was to red
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
>
> Who should I talk to
> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interp
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> > explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> > The problems, alt
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
> that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
> non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
&
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
>
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > > into the common reference area?
&
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
>
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> as documents.
Bl
Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > > sure, but it's definitely not j
different from free software
when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software
or documentation in the first place?
...
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
I agree. I'm sure someone could show me a non DFSG compliant licen
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale>
t as GPL-licensed software is free software. It places additional
restriction, but those restriction aren't really harmful. IMHO the
restrictions of the FDL are less harmful than those of the GPL, as the
FDL doesn't limit from doing useful things. The GPL does, you can't
link GPL'd c
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
> Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
&g
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
>
> Who should I talk to ab
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
No, it would be premature. There&#
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to D
would it be a good idea to add MIT/X license to the examples of free
licenses at the end of #2.1.1 of the policy? how can i ask for this change?
thanks
-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
--[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E
Hello,
I would like to package a set of programs, that are linked against a
propritary library. The author has signed a NDA in order to develop the
library (see below) and is not allowed to publish the source. Though, he
placed the frontend tools unto GPL, and is willing to change the license
to
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 05:30:28PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Based on this, that leaves us with three options:
>
> 1.) Replace Python 1.5.2 with Python 1.6 in the Debian development tree
> ("woody").
>
> Then we had to remove all packages that might be t
d don't feel
KK> it's incompatible, but it could be damaging to either Debian,
KK> Python, or both if it can't be packaged. Can't Python 1.6 be
KK> licensed under more than one license like Perl?
Just a word of clarification from the Debian Python mai
Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
> > As Goswin mentioned earlier it's also possible to use bochs with some
> > other bios
> [snip]
>
> I´m not sure if this even touches this discussion but what about using the
> bios
> that is already
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Roland Bauerschmidt wrote:
> As Goswin mentioned earlier it's also possible to use bochs with some
> other bios
[snip]
I´m not sure if this even touches this discussion but what about using the bios
that is already present on most computers?
Wouldn´t that reduce the dependen
I originally ITPed bochs. Unfortunately it would have to go in non-free.
the VGA-BIOS included is licensed only for use and distribution with
bochs. It therefor cannot be seperated into a seperate package from
bochs (and if bochs is packaged, it should ge removed from the source
archive.
Andrew
typed and types a
> phrase twice).
>
> If that's the case it should be a trivial fix.
>
The situation is that I am trying to maintain TkMan while applying to be a
debian maintainer. The new TkMan license is stated above. Yet as far as I
understand this license is not enough for askin
h includes some gifs using the IMPACT
> > (windows) truetype font.
> > now i wonder if this is ok, because i don't know about impact's license.
> > does anyone?
>
> Distribution of rendered fonts is legal provided that you aquired the font
> rendered legally
hello
i'm planning to package a perl tool i made (available at
http://tools.desire.ch/perlbeat) which includes some gifs using the IMPACT
(windows) truetype font.
now i wonder if this is ok, because i don't know about impact's license.
does anyone?
thanks for your help
Stefan
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentatio
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
speech.. =)
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:54:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> > Should this new license be included in base-files?
>
> That seems very premature. Best wait until
>
> 1) It is a common-license
> 2) debian-legal has vetted it
>
> Personally, I have to w
Jordi wrote:
> Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering m
Should this new license be included in base-files?
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
ka Oskuro in RL-MUD || [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://sindominio.net GnuPG public information: pub 1024D/917A225E
telnet pusa.uv.es 23
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 03:15:47PM -0500, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> B) Offender does not relent and/or makes funny faces at us
> Of course we are horrified by the funny faces, but how do we defend our
> licensing? Perhaps we need a lawyer for this part.
I suggest that we tell them that th
il saying "I am on the case" or something
to that effect. However, what if Bruce fails? We (or SPI) own the
copyrights to much of Debian. Whatever shall we do? Chew on this:
1) License problem is identified
2) Responsible person (Bruce, Project leader, SPI officer, whatever)
contacts offe
So, while DSA is an unpatented algorithm, the implementation in BIND
is not free software any more than the implementation of RSA in BIND
is free software.
You are right. Free software must not have a license that requires
people to obey any country's export controls.
It
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 05:47:57PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote:
> http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
>
> Did we already have a discussion about this?
Yeah, it needs some work.
Problem is that I do not receive answers to my inquiries. We opened a board
a year ago (with me as a member), but discussio
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
Did we already have a discussion about this?
Will
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For the record, kaffe is *NOT* as good as the blackdown JDK. I
> > have used both, and, as it is, kaffe crashes before my research system
> > loads, yet the blackdown jdk works flawlessly.
>
> So report the bug to the kaffe people, and then they'll fix it, and then
> kaffe will work f
"Seth M. Landsman" wrote:
>
> > Basically, we're in BLATANT violation of the license currently. It states
> > quite clearly that redistribution is prohibited. So, plain and simple,
> > we're shit out of luck. As someone else pointed out, Kaffe is just as
&
> "jim" == jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jim> If this is the case,
It is & I'm awaiting Sun permission to distribure the jdk with a
licence that allows redistribution in some form.
--
Stephen (jdk maintainer)
---
Long noun chains don't automatically imply security. - Bruce Schneier
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 07:48:28PM -0400, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
>
> > What is wrong with distributing an installation package like is
> > done with netscape and realaudio?
>
> Hrm. You know, that didn't occur to me. As long as it contains NOTH
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> What is wrong with distributing an installation package like is
> done with netscape and realaudio?
Hrm. You know, that didn't occur to me. As long as it contains NOTHING of
JDK, that's good. :)
> For the record, kaffe is *NOT* as good
> Basically, we're in BLATANT violation of the license currently. It states
> quite clearly that redistribution is prohibited. So, plain and simple,
> we're shit out of luck. As someone else pointed out, Kaffe is just as
> good, with better response. But either way,
On Mon, 17 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
> I am given to understand that someone has found a problem in the license of
> jdk, to the point that same person finds that debian cannot distribute
> the jdk at all. I was told that the problem found in the license has
> existed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am given to understand that someone has found a problem in the license of
> jdk, to the point that same person finds that debian cannot distribute the jdk
> at all. I was told that the problem found in the license has existed for a
> lo
Hi
I am given to understand that someone has found a problem in the license of
jdk, to the point that same person finds that debian cannot distribute the jdk
at all. I was told that the problem found in the license has existed for a
long time.
If this is the case,
WHY is a jdk that doesn&#
intrusion
detection coupled with both hostSentry and logcheck... This could also lend
itself to modules for portSentry as I had a external module that would get
call'd when portSentry would be triggered...
Before deciding to just accept portSentry as being non-free on the
basis of the cu
Rene Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As I am new to creating Debian packages, I am not sure if Abacus Portsentry's
license allows it to be put in the main (or if it has to go into non-free)
section. The program is free to use by anybody and can be distributed in
an
Hi
As I am new to creating Debian packages, I am not sure if Abacus Portsentry's
license allows it to be put in the main (or if it has to go into non-free)
section. The program is free to use by anybody and can be distributed in
any form, the only problem is that the author proh
Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try Japhar/Classpath:
>
> www.japhar.org -- free JDK (compiler, runtime, debugger, etc.)
> www.classpath.org -- free implementation of the essential java libraries
Plus...
www.transvirtual.com -- Kaffe JIT
www.mozilla.org -- ElectricalFire JIT
Cheer
On Jan 27, Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For license-fans: It uses a license based on the revised Jikes license,
>i.e., it's the new Jikes license with 'Compiler' changed to 'Parser
>Generator'. The termination clause now uses the same lang
We have free software guidelines, we have a logo. There may be room for
improvement in both, but we do have them. What we lack is a license for
the logo. This may be a minor issue, but I believe that it's rather
critical right now.
It has been suggested that we trademark the logo. This
On 27-Jan-99 Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Try Japhar/Classpath:
>
> www.japhar.org -- free JDK (compiler, runtime, debugger, etc.)
> www.classpath.org -- free implementation of the essential java libraries
>
By "we" I meant packaged and working. Ean was supposed to be packaging Kaffe.
gt; To: Mike Goldman
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Jikes-License] Jikes Parser Generator now
> available
> i
>
>
> Now we need a free JDK and off we go (=
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Now we need a free JDK and off we go (=
Wonderful news from IBM. I will have packages up shortly.
Original Message
Subject: [Jikes-License] Jikes Parser Generator now available in source
form
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:33:12 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:33:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
> > laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
> > weapons under their international treaty obligations)
>
> On the contrary.
Andrew writes:
> You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
> laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
> weapons under their international treaty obligations)
On the contrary. The "military", at least in the US and the UK, act in
ac
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:26:19AM -, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Avery Pennarun wrote:
> >What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear
> >missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :))
>
> Only if they distribute the control systems :>
You'v
701 - 800 of 957 matches
Mail list logo
