On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Carlos Torres wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Maxime Coste wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:39:36PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>> On 7 July 2014 21:24, Maxime Coste wrote:
>>> Otherwise the tomatos that you harvest
>>> in the summer in y
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Maxime Coste wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:39:36PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> On 7 July 2014 21:24, Maxime Coste wrote:
>> Otherwise the tomatos that you harvest
>> in the summer in your garden might also become property of your
>> employer ;)
>
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:39:36PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 7 July 2014 21:24, Maxime Coste wrote:
> > Seems to me you probably have tons of corporate copyright without knowing
> > it,
> > most software engineer contract specify that any code written by the
> > employee
> > *including*
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:50:19 -0400
Nick wrote:
> I disagree. Google are much better than Microsoft in terms of
> software freedom, and the culture seems to be pretty good at
> allowing and encouraging free software contributions. I have
> benefited significantly personally and professionally fr
Quoth FRIGN:
> In my opinion, Google is at the same level as Microsoft when it comes
> to software-freedom.
I disagree. Google are much better than Microsoft in terms of
software freedom, and the culture seems to be pretty good at
allowing and encouraging free software contributions. I have
be
Quoth FRIGN:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:19:15 +0200
> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > +© 2014 Google Inc. // author: Michal Nazarewicz
>
> I don't know about you guys but I don't want Google to infest the
> license. Michal, either you join the license with your name only or
> forget about the patch.
On 7 July 2014 21:46, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:39:36 +0200
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
>> IMHO I only came across such legal terms in a contract proposal by
>> some US company, a couple of years ago.
>> Apart from US companies I can't confirm that such contracts are common
>> practice,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:39:36 +0200
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> IMHO I only came across such legal terms in a contract proposal by
> some US company, a couple of years ago.
> Apart from US companies I can't confirm that such contracts are common
> practice, particularly not under German law.
>
> Sourc
On 7 July 2014 21:24, Maxime Coste wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:53:09PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:37:05 +0200
>> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyright is owned by Google. If you
>> > cannot accept corporate copyright there's no poin
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:53:09PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:37:05 +0200
> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyright is owned by Google. If you
> > cannot accept corporate copyright there's no point in me trying to get
> > the patch to be technic
On 7 July 2014 15:53, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:37:05 +0200
> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyright is owned by Google. If you
>> cannot accept corporate copyright there's no point in me trying to get
>> the patch to be technically acceptable.
>
> We
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:37:05 +0200
Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyright is owned by Google. If you
> cannot accept corporate copyright there's no point in me trying to get
> the patch to be technically acceptable.
Well, we don't accept corporate copyright. End of
On Mon, Jul 07 2014, Martti Kühne wrote:
> I hope for your sake that you're able to differenciate between the
> different criticisms.
> We may very well appear insane, if you don't care that if you're with
> suckless
>
> * you're in it rather as an individual
I'm sorry, but no I'm not. The copyr
On July 7, 2014 8:42:19 AM CEST, "Martti Kühne" wrote:
>I feel honored and desecrated for suckless.
>But somebody obviously spent google's paid time on this and had,
>therefore, to note so in the license... xD
Or he wanted to show off his employer.
I feel honored and desecrated for suckless.
But somebody obviously spent google's paid time on this and had,
therefore, to note so in the license... xD
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alex-P. Natsios wrote:
> Plus i have yet to see anyone use dmenu in that way.
They can’t in the first place.
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 08:31:11PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>
>
> I don't know about you guys but I don't want Google to infest the
> license. Michal, either you join the license with your name only or
> forget about the patch.
> I've had very bad experiences with big companies having
> licensing-
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 14:31:56 -0400
Lee Fallat wrote:
> I was actually going to ask about this too but held back; I'm assuming
> that this patch will never be merged and people will only see that if
> they apply this patch...
And this is perfectly right! It's important to raise this issue.
If you
I was actually going to ask about this too but held back; I'm assuming
that this patch will never be merged and people will only see that if
they apply this patch...
What I was going to say:
> A little off-topic here, but why was there a need to put:
> +© 2014 Google Inc.
> In the licence?...(just
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:19:15 +0200
Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> Add a “-c” option which enables tab-completion for file-names. With
> it enabled, when entered text contains multiple words (for example
> “soffice docs”) or contains a slash (for example “~/bin”), pressing
> C-i or Tab will expand th
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 08:19:15PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> +© 2014 Google Inc. // author: Michal Nazarewicz
You should already have elaborated on this. Do it now.
Kind regards,
-Alex
Add a “-c” option which enables tab-completion for file-names. With
it enabled, when entered text contains multiple words (for example
“soffice docs”) or contains a slash (for example “~/bin”), pressing
C-i or Tab will expand the last argument as a file name.
If there were multiple expansions the
22 matches
Mail list logo
