Merhaba
Listede daha önce[1] gpl-v3 ile ilgili birkaç yazışma olmuştu. Acaba
GPLv3 Türkçe sürümüne ulaşabileceğimiz bir yer var mı? Çeviri için
kullanılabilecek bir arabirim[2] var fakat türkçe için kullanan olmamış.
1- http://www.nabble.com/gpl-v3-türkçe-çeviri-çalışması-t4466411.html
2- http
Merhaba,
GPLv3 için bir çeviri çalışması var mı, ya da tamamlanmış bir çevirisi
bulunmakta mıdır? Bir projede dosyaya koymak için, çevirisine ihtiyacım var.
Bilgisi olan arkadaşlar yönlendirebilirlerse sevinirim.
Teşekkür ederim. İyi çalışmalar.
--
Ali Deniz EREN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
evet var.
benim birader calisiyor :-)
tahminen bu hafta sonuna biter.
17.09.2007 tarihinde Ali Deniz EREN [EMAIL PROTECTED] yazmış:
Merhaba,
GPLv3 için bir çeviri çalışması var mı, ya da tamamlanmış bir çevirisi
bulunmakta mıdır? Bir projede dosyaya koymak için, çevirisine ihtiyacım var.
Curt Howland wrote in Article [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
to gmane.linux.debian.user:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 12:24, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Joe writes:
Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to
make a new law or repeal an existing one?
Am 2007-04-02 20:50:25, schrieb John L Fjellstad:
Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much say in
the license of the kernel since the different codes are owned by the
different authors (unlike FSF software that is owned by FSF). They
would either have to track down
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:45:33PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-04-02 20:50:25, schrieb John L Fjellstad:
Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much say in
the license of the kernel since the different codes are owned by the
different authors (unlike FSF
I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from
happening.
Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a
patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error.
You're confused: while I expect most GPLv3 contributors find software patents
an
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:03:05 +0200
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Well, it appears that it isn't. It seems that companies have found
loopholes to create proprietary software using GPL code. I don't know
if anyone has actually taken any of these companies to court and
challenged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Celejar wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:03:05 +0200
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Well, it appears that it isn't. It seems that companies have found
loopholes to create proprietary software using GPL code. I don't know
if anyone
I wrote:
Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a
patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error.
Joe writes:
Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new
law or repeal an existing one?
Something must be done. This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a
patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error.
Joe writes:
Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 05 April 2007 12:24, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Joe writes:
Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to
make a new law or repeal an existing one?
Something must be done. This is something.
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
Yes.
2 - are you a Free Software supporter, or an Open Source supporter?
Yes.
My gut feeling is that the answers are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
Yes.
That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
Yes.
That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 09:51 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 16:38 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested
Joe Hart writes:
Are you in favor of the GPLv3 (y/n)?
Do you prefer for things to stay with GPLv2 (y/n)?
I oppose GPLv3 and favor GPLv2 (not that my opinion is of any consequence).
I do so precisely because I strongly support Free Software.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[snip]
Are we board because there are so few questions being asked (y/n)?
^
I am not stiff and inflexible.
Bored, yes. Waiting for Etch, yes.
Now it's you ruining my joke :; I was referring to Sid being not very
active.
I think
down in a new version (say the next gcc for example) at
GPL v3, will this prove a problem. Right now, a lot of GNU docs aren't
included (e.g. see tar man page) because they're under the GFDL with
some clauses incompatible with Debian. Is there any concern that GNU
utils (not docs) will become
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Misko wrote:
Can anybody explain what is the difference between GPL v2 and GPL v3.
And why is versionn 3 considered not good by some people,
also same for version 2.
Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from
restricting
Misko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
as I understand it is:
if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL.
I believe this is only true if you intend to share your code. You can
make any changes you like and keep them to yourself if you don't intend
to allow others to see/use it at all.
Joe writes:
Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from
restricting users what they can do with things that the software makes,
such as putting DRM in media.
It also attempts to limit enforcement of their patents. It is so complex
as to be very difficult to understand.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Hasler wrote:
Joe writes:
Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from
restricting users what they can do with things that the software makes,
such as putting DRM in media.
It also attempts to limit enforcement of
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 10:36:28 AM -0400, Greg Folkert
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I am both for and against the GPLv3. I am all for updating it, but
the wording and additional restrictions are appalling, none the
least the motivations for updating it, and now the attitude RMS has
against any
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 21:20 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 10:36:28 AM -0400, Greg Folkert
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I am both for and against the GPLv3. I am all for updating it, but
the wording and additional restrictions are appalling, none the
least the motivations
Greg Folkert writes:
I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from
happening.
Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a
patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL.
That's the gist of it, although it's only if you distribute your program
that this comes into effect.
Also this is not really the end goal, but rather its means. The end goal is
to make it possible for anybody to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Hasler wrote:
Greg Folkert writes:
I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from
happening.
Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a
patent problem with a copyright license is a serious
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 02:27, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as
major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly
views as essential features.
Beautifully said, in
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
Doug writes:
Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer
so I don't really understand.
You've put your finger on a major defect.
If you're
sees any problems with v3 in relation to
Debian. As in, if gcc or any of the fundamental GNU utils (we are
GNU/Linux) comes down in a new version (say the next gcc for example) at
GPL v3, will this prove a problem. Right now, a lot of GNU docs aren't
included (e.g. see tar man page) because they're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
Doug writes:
Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer
so I don't really
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg,
I am very interested in the GPLv3.
This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice
your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here,
then send it to me off list please.
Joe
If off list then please CC me
Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to
say about the GPLv3 though, since I really don't know much about it
except that it covers DRM (Which previous versions of the GPL didn't
touch).
Does anyone have a list of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:45:48PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
Doug writes:
Would you elaborate? It left me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:12, Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll
stop.
I'm not sure that discussion of the license under which (virtually)
all of Debian is
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:45:48PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response
(tirade as some would call it).
I am very interested in the GPLv3.
This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice
your opinion, I'm
On 04/03/2007 10:50 AM, Joe Hart wrote:
Greg Folkert wrote:
This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as
to what is wrong with GPLV3.
This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to
voice your opinion, I'm asking.
I too am interested. Do you think we can get
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:58 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:12, Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll
stop.
I'm not sure that discussion
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 17:45 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
Greg,
I am very interested in the GPLv3.
This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice
your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then
send it to me off list please.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 17:45 +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
Greg,
I am very interested in the GPLv3.
This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice
your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 14:18 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
Actually I'd like to hear it too. The GNU GPL is very Debian related,
seeing as Debian is one of the only distros with a strong voice when
it comes to free software. And I'm very interested to hear the legal
side of things, since I
So, let me ask you, when you drive the speed limit, you are skirting the
law. Or if in a 55MPH speed limit area and you drive 55MPH... exactly,
are you are skirting the law (and therefore staying within the limits of
the law) or are you breaking the spirit of the law and should be
punished
I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3
that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com.
Since much of debian is covered under v2 but has the clause or any
later version, what implications does this have for debian?
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:26 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3
that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com.
Since much of debian is covered under v2 but has the clause or any
later version, what implications
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:26:01PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3
that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com.
Since much of debian is covered under v2
I'm not one to say if Debian will convert, but I'm pretty sure it be
mostly beneficial if they do.
Debian can't convert. The copyrights in most packages are owned by the
upstream authors. The copyrights in native packages such as Pppconfig are
owned by the individual DDs who wrote them.
I'd
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:59:23PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to
say about the GPLv3...
It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer
so I don't
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:33:24PM -0400, Andrew Barr wrote:
I'd certainly like to see the kernel go GPLv3...granted parts of the
kernel could go anyway without Linus' explicit blessing, but after all
the kernel is a flagship free software project...
What do you see v3 doing for the kernel
Andrew writes:
Not necessarily an answer to your question, but I read that Linus
Torvalds is becoming a bit more open to the GPLv3 with some of the latest
iterations we've seen.
Considering the number of authors who would have to be either convinced to
convert or be written out, conversion of
I wrote:
It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
Doug writes:
Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer
so I don't really understand.
You've put your finger on a major defect.
If you're appalled, presumably you 'get it'.
This is not the right forum
Andrew Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd certainly like to see the kernel go GPLv3...granted parts of the
kernel could go anyway without Linus' explicit blessing, but after all
the kernel is a flagship free software project...
Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much
Does anyone know where I can find the tool behind FSF's GPL v3
commenting[1]?
It is a rather cool idea, and I'd really like to see if it can be
adapted to allow comments on source code. (If there's already such a
tool then I'd be most interested in that as well, of course.)
/M
[1]: http
57 matches
Mail list logo
