.
If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
with it.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:45:47PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. It also
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:58:35PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is
why I don't always honor requests to CC
others to do extra work for your sole benefit because you refuse
to use M-F-T is not a reasonable option.
I agree that it would have been better as X-Mail-Followup-To.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
the beginning, but it does seem
like an improvement. (Of course, I suggested it with the hope that others
might be able to refine it.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
could hypothesize some, but they're along similar lines as list
software that sets Reply-To automatically: it may override explicit uses
of it. I'm not sure if that'd be a problem. But, I can think of no problems
along the lines you're talking about.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
doesn't
want. MFT doesn't change that.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly
be CC'd.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in Debian which effectively prohibit code reuse).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]; the only
software named was gnuplot, and maybe TeX. (TeX led into a discussion
that didn't reach much conclusion, except that we're not really sure.)
[1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
is
free.
To clarify why this is not a valid interpretation:
Er, you followed this with three paragraphs that seemed like a reply to
someone arguing documentation isn't software, so it doesn't have to be
free, but nobody was doing that.
--
ksig --random|
er? :)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:41:03AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Nobody is lying. A lie is an untruth made with the intent to
deceive. Debian doesn't try to hide these unmodifiable licenses;
it's been discussed openly
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:23:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think trying to declare firmware to be not a program, in order to
permit it in main without including source, is contrived; if Debian wants
to allow firmware
if it disagrees with the project's
conclusion--than to ask do we want to pretend firmware isn't a program,
so we can ignore the DFSG's source requirements?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wish people had to write a few paragraphs justifying their votes
for government elections. Votes in essay format. One can dream ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that without bias is probably a lot
easier than writing unbiased summaries for an opinion a person disagrees
with.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to take up this particular battle
(eg. that of Free Software, including its documentation) and gain a full
understanding of the issues and arguments do so, to the benefit of everyone
else.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:52:17PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is about making sure everyone that receives the work receives
permission to do things to it (modify, distribute, and so on), and
making sure that everyone gets source (so
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
1. Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:43:47PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
1. Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine
of unpopular views or
opinions is a goal important enough to abandon the ability to modify,
maintain and reuse works.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that the content you have
received reflects the author's original intent more authentically?
No.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
categorically incapable of responding to my arguments,
confirming my earlier observation. You're also replying to a
civil, honest mail rudely and derisively. I'm not sure what you
think you're contributing with this attitude, or who you believe
will be convinced by it.
--
Glenn Maynard
of invariant text in licenses should
be extended to anything else, since nothing except for legal text is
fundamentally unavoidable. People keep trying to use legal texts as a
wedge to allowing more and more restrictions on non-legal texts.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:49:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
The preamble can be removed, but not from other people's works; when
the GPL is attached to a work, the preamble is a full-blown invariant
section.
Can't one just license the work under trivial-not-GPL which
.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(out of thousands), pay me $100
is non-free if we can't delete that source file.
[1] Tangent: even so, patch clauses effectively prohibit code reuse, one
of the most fundamental benefits of free software--I don't understand why
that's acceptable ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
, and extracting those is probably the best
bet--except that the particularly well-thought-out responses are buried
among a couple thousand other mails ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
freedom. Restrictions are not
Free by default; they must be proven, and the few people claiming
invariant sections are free have so far utterly failed to do so.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:33:52AM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find that anyone with a shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
remains Free attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
I can't tell if your arguments are defensible because you didn't
a given restriction is non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in
polls like this. If you have a defensible position, replying to a
poll won't do it justice.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is the peculiarity, not the lack
of it, or at least that the implementation of fair use in different places
differs too widely to base anything off of the US's particular version.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
disappointing that people will actually argue that completely
invariant, untouchable text is free enough; I have to wonder why they're
even here.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explored. (I'm not going to waste my time digging up discussions about
them for you, since you'll just complain that they're not an official
position statement. Find them yourself.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
on it
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posts won't appear in the normal flow of the thread.
(I actually do point them out in the hope that you'll fix them. If you
don't care enough about the quality of your posts to do so, it's not my
loss. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
was lightly humerous, not an attack.
(I don't know why I'm replying seriously to a nameless top-poster with
an email address [EMAIL PROTECTED], though. My bad. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:06:10AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2005 10.39, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Adrian von Bidder:
what type of traffic do you expect on the list
when consultants are force-fed it?
I don't know about you, but I detected a bit of sarcasm
).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
coming in that's untagged or mistagged; in practice--for
my own use--that's entirely email and web pages, and everything else is on
the fringe. Oh, and file editors, since we'll all be receiving plain text
files in our respective country's legacy encoding for the forseeable future.
--
Glenn
, this argument seems like a non-issue to me.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at a given time?
Once the hardware's out there, it's out there--I don't think the case of
all devices with firmware in flash have been tracked down and destroyed,
so we have to move this driver back to contrib is a serious worry.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
a program that makes
optional use of a non-free library can go in main, while a program consisting
soley of that code must go in contrib.
--
Glenn Maynard
of the
FSF changing this with the GPL, either.)
--
Glenn Maynard
and
making all sorts of changes to it. This type of restriction is explicitly
allowed by DFSG#4.
Technical standards should be (and are--once 2004-003 kicks back in,
at least) held to the same standards of freedom as everything else in
Debian.
--
Glenn Maynard
), and that trademarks are the correct approach. So, it
seems to make sense that DFSG#4 allow implementing change-of-name
requirements via trademark.
I'm not certain about any of this, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
to allow it, with all of the slippery slopes and
other messes that would entail).
--
Glenn Maynard
work that way.
--
Glenn Maynard
.)
--
Glenn Maynard
the problem isn't based in copyright.
(Of course, there are related problems which are based in copyright, such
as distributing modifications under a restrictive license, but that's GPL#6.)
--
Glenn Maynard
time alleging that it violates your patents, and I
don't believe this is a permission that a free software license needs
to grant, just as permission to take my software proprietary isn't a
permission that a free software license needs to grant.
--
Glenn Maynard
in a way that was practical for free software; but that
doesn't convince me that using copyright against patents is inherently
wrong.
--
Glenn Maynard
also non-free is a
useful rule of thumb, but like all rules of thumb, we should be able
to get to the root of the issue--why the rule of thumb is correct in
each instance. So far, I don't see it here.
--
Glenn Maynard
to constant idiocy like this (eg.
claiming that people who disagree with you are attempt[ing] to hand
over control of free software to large corporations). Try not lacing every
post with condescension, for a change, to improve your signal/Sven ratio.
--
Glenn Maynard
believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate legal
right that needs to be protected.
(I do believe that potential abuses need to be explored carefully, of course.)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 07:17:15PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Glenn Maynard writes:
I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate legal
right that needs to be protected.
What about hardware patents?
Well, a patent probably doesn't really apply to software at all
clauses have room for
abuse (making them non-free in practice).
[1] https://helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
(Not that I'm endorsing this license--I believe it's non-free in a couple
other ways.)
--
Glenn Maynard
, and you can attempt to take steps to change the situation
if you like. However, in the meantime the RC bug is still correct and
should be fixed, or (if you refuse to adhere to both the Social Contract
and the license on the Official Use logo), remain open.
--
Glenn Maynard
61 matches
Mail list logo
