Code that is freely available doesn't need protection
as nothing can
happen to it other then someone else using and improving it
which is a
good thing regardless of what else happens to that copy
subsequently.
I am sure many would disagree with this, The code has to be protected in some
Long ago it might not have been completely predictable
that
many end
points of the longest-developed paths of unix
development
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history-simple.svg)
Thank you for the link, a friend of mine has one in his classroom and it has
1969 as the birth
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Code that is freely available doesn't need protection
as nothing can
happen to it other then someone else using and improving it
which is a
good thing regardless of what else happens to that copy
subsequently.
I am sure many would disagree with this, The code has to be
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 12:31 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Code that is freely available doesn't need protection
as nothing can
happen to it other then someone else using and improving it
which is a
good thing regardless of what else happens to that copy
subsequently.
I am sure
Open source, not GPL'd - they mean different but
overlapping things.
The *bsd's have always been open sourced but all of the
original unix
functionality from the ATT underpinnings was
re-written. OpenSolaris
should include as much of the originally proprietary work
as they have
been
Sure, there is one, and that's exactly it. The LGPL is
one example of a
license that protects the code while permitting the
creation of derived
works with mixed components. The CPL is another. There
are several
more listed at opensource.org. The MySQL open-source
exception to the
GPL
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Thank you for the link, a friend of mine has one in his classroom and it has 1969 as the birth of Unix, and in 1991/1992 the birth of Linux. Linux the kernel and combined with the GNU utilities started the Linux distribution. Another friend of mine also told me that
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 13:41 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Sure, there is one, and that's exactly it. The LGPL is
one example of a
license that protects the code while permitting the
creation of derived
works with mixed components. The CPL is another. There
are several
more
Les Mikesell wrote:
What was actually sold is under dispute. SCO claims it owns the
copyright and associated licensing. Novell claims it was just a
licensing/resale arrangement - and this is still in appeals courts. The
first decision went to Novell, but that's been thrown out. I'm not
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, Linus was once widely quoted as saying that loadable
binary driver modules were not derivative works of the kernel - and I
believe that the initial popularity of depended on that interpretation
just as much as the wide use of glibc depends on it not
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On the other hand, Linus was once widely quoted as saying that
loadable binary driver modules were not derivative works of the kernel
- and I believe that the initial popularity of depended on that
interpretation just as much as the wide use of glibc depends on it not
Les Mikesell wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On the other hand, Linus was once widely quoted as saying that
loadable binary driver modules were not derivative works of the
kernel - and I believe that the initial popularity of depended on
that interpretation just as much as the wide use of
ZFS was included in FreeBSD 7.0 because the BSD license is more free than the
GPL with that regard.
ZFS has patents and nobody wants to take the risk
http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066
ZFS (if and when someone ports it to Linux) might still be
able to live
a life like AFS does as a third
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Does this direct quote from 1995 help your memory problem?
Claiming that I have memory problems after you have been misstating the
case for a long time without any references is quite rich. The below
quote or mail nowhere has a blanket statement saying binary modules
You were told about the problems earlier on too and you
choose to ignore
it. CDDL was deliberately designed to be incompatible with
GPL
http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
--
In looking at the article and the incompatibilities, I have found a chart on
This discussion is becoming both increasingly religious and somewhat
oblique in its depictions of the elements under discussion. It may be
instructive to review the classic definitions of some of these elements
in order to clarify in the minds of zealots from the several sides of
the
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[snip]
wasn't BSD UNIX for big iron around before FSF got it's start?
Didn't BSD have a fairly complete system *before*
GNU tools started being widespread?
Yup. But IIRC back then BSD was still largely encumbered by ATT UNIX
code. Otherwise GNU might have never been
John Burton wrote:
What is the distinction that makes people
claim GNU/BSD?
The only time that I know of people referring to a GNU/BSD is in the
case of GNU/kFreeBSD, where the GNU operating system is paired with the
FreeBSD kernel.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To
John Burton wrote:
Okay, here are a couple of questions I haven't seen answered. There are
several license schemes put forth for Open Source software. GPL and
BSD are two that come to mind immediately. The purpose of open source
is to counter the traditional closed source model of software.
John Cornelius wrote:
This discussion is becoming both increasingly religious and somewhat
oblique in its depictions of the elements under discussion. It may be
instructive to review the classic definitions of some of these elements
in order to clarify in the minds of zealots from the several
Rick Stevens wrote:
Yup. But IIRC back then BSD was still largely encumbered by ATT UNIX
code. Otherwise GNU might have never been started as such: BSD could
have been the Free operating system of choice.
Technically BSD was built at the University of California, Berkeley from
UNIX System
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Our entire history of science and engineering is Open.
Getting way off topic here, but I think you are way too optimistic in
your view of this. A huge part of science and engineering work has
historically been done for military purposes and kept closed for as long
as
All mainstream distro's are not listed . this could be allowance of
restricted or copyrighted codecs .
qoute
which only include and only propose free software. They reject
non-free applications, non-free programming platforms, non-free
drivers, or non-free firmware blobs
/qoute
interesting .!!
--
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Gordon Messmer wrote:
John Burton wrote:
snip
I forgot to point out that Free Software is most definitely the traditional
development method. When GNU was started, it was in response to a change
from the traditional method to a black-box distribution method for
Gordon Messmer wrote:
John Cornelius wrote:
This discussion is becoming both increasingly religious and somewhat
oblique in its depictions of the elements under discussion. It may be
instructive to review the classic definitions of some of these
elements in order to clarify in the minds of
Gordon Messmer wrote:
John Burton wrote:
Okay, here are a couple of questions I haven't seen answered. There
are several license schemes put forth for Open Source software. GPL
and BSD are two that come to mind immediately. The purpose of open
source is to counter the traditional closed
Gordon Messmer wrote:
John Cornelius wrote:
This discussion is becoming both increasingly religious and somewhat
oblique in its depictions of the elements under discussion. It may be
instructive to review the classic definitions of some of these
elements in order to clarify in the minds of
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Our entire history of science and engineering is Open.
Getting way off topic here, but I think you are way too optimistic in
your view of this. A huge part of science and engineering work has
historically been done for military purposes and kept
From: Gordon Messmer
Our entire history of science and engineering is Open.
If by *open*, you mean openly and freely shared, nope. Historically,
that has *never* been true.
If you mean freely ( as in liberally ) used for one's own benefit, then
yeah, it was open. :O
Understanding
You could, however, get a license for BSD for a LOT less ($5k, I think),
and that's what a LOT of people did (including Sun, DEC, IBM, Data
General, Silicon Graphics and others too many to name).
BSD required an ATT license for V7.
Alan
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To
Rick Stevens wrote:
The history is really much more complex than this. Wikipedia has a
nice graphic of how the open/commercial parts developed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix. But basically since the
government-regulated monopoly (ATT) that did the initial work could
not sell it
On Jul 17, 2008, John Cornelius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Operating System:
[kernel and kernel inspection and filesystem utilities, no more]
Per your definition, UNIX wouldn't have ever been regarded as just an
operating system. Which is wrong, the definition or the understanding
as to what
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 12:33 PM
Rick Stevens wrote:
The history is really
Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 12:33 PM
Rick Stevens wrote
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have been keeping up with this thread and am actually surprised that no one
has mentioned SCO, and if they did, I missed it:)
SCO wasn't particularly interesting in terms of development work unless
you go all the way back to xenix on some really horrible hardware
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I have never seen any reason to believe that Ken and Dennis have ever
been interested in Free Software.
In most companies, the employees who create things do not own them and a
different set of people would determine the licensing. So that's kind
of irrelevant.
I
Gordon Messmer wrote:
GNU is not Linux and Linux is not GNU, it's just an evolution of a
movement started by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie nearly 40 years ago.
I think you're giving Ken and Dennis too much credit. As far as I
understand it, Unix was only distributed free of charge because
John Burton wrote:
You can go back to the Text Book definition from Andrew Tennebaum
(sp?) who wrote the text book on Operating Systems used by most CS
courses. That definition is pretty close to what John originally
described. This parallels my original question of what causes people
to
Les Mikesell wrote:
This doesn't make much sense until the completion of the standalone BSD
that I thought happened a lot later. Originally you had to have an ATT
license to run the BSD additions. And at these prices it's pretty easy
to see why everyone was running Windows a few years later
On Jul 16, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
That is just not true.
Agreed. It's just better for everyone involved in the cooperation
than permissive licenses. To understand why, have a look at
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Close your eyes for a moment and picture a big red tag that reads:
$ COOPERATION
That's the GPL.
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
You're not showing very good reading comprehension. I'm implying the
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Close your eyes for a moment and picture a big red tag that reads:
$ COOPERATION
That's the GPL.
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
You're not showing very good reading comprehension. I'm
Gordon Messmer wrote:
[...snip...]
The side effect of the unneeded restriction of $90k dollars for a
Mercedes is that I don't get to drive one. Cry me a river.
Cooperation is the cost of reusing GPL licensed software.
Close your eyes for a moment and picture a big red tag that reads:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
But it is equally ridiculous either way, when 80+% is neither GNU nor
Linux code. Calling it an xwindow system would make more sense. Or
perhaps a firefox/thunderbird/openoffice.org system - with most of
the other parts interchangeable.
If
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
That is just not true.
Agreed. It's just better for everyone involved in the cooperation
than permissive licenses.
No it isn't. There is never a down side to permitting additional uses.
They never
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:04 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
You seem to be implying that the GPL is necessary for cooperation.
That is just not true.
Agreed. It's just better for everyone involved in the cooperation
than permissive licenses.
No it isn't.
On Jul 16, 2008, John Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some, not all, are provide by FSF. What specifically causes linux to
be considered GNU/Linux ?
I sense a faulty assumption in the question, so let me expand the
terms you put in quotes.
What specifically causes the combination of the GNU
On Jul 16, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it isn't. There is never a down side to permitting additional
uses. They never reduce the possibilities for the original work.
Correct. The downside is merely the failure to provide even more
incentive for the possibilities that are
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Imagine if the reference TCP implementation had been GPL'd and no
commercial systems used it because of the restrictive license. We'd
still be struggling to make any two different systems communicate
today.
It's indeed difficult to implement code to follow
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:32 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes, there are unfortunate downsides because of license
incompatibilities. This is not exclusive of copyleft licenses. We've
also covered in fedora-devel that authors who want to cooperate to
promote a better world will find a way
John Burton wrote:
The side effect of the unneeded restriction of $90k dollars for a
Mercedes is that I don't get to drive one. Cry me a river.
Cooperation is the cost of reusing GPL licensed software.
Close your eyes for a moment and picture a big red tag that reads:
$ COOPERATION
--- On Mon, 7/14/08, Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
To: fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, July 14, 2008, 3:47 AM
Antonio Olivares olivares14031 at yahoo.com
writes:
A Because
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:40 -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish. As if changing the name will
change the nature of the system. While I am an advocate of free and
open source software, and agree
On Jul 14, 2008, Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antonio Olivares olivares14031 at yahoo.com writes:
A Because Fedora includes Firmware and those guys don't.
Bullsh*t!
BLAG 7 ships:
* the original Fedora 7 kernels as the default and kernel-libre only as an
option,
Big
On Jul 14, 2008, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?
Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within the
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
If you find any such problems in BLAG 8 (never formally released)
or BLAG 9 (released easier today), please report them.
Here's some I found at a quick glance:
I wrote:
Claims to be GPLv2, but only the firmware loader is GPLv2 (actually dual
GPLv2 or BSD).
Or rather, GPLv2+ or MIT.
So in total, the correct License tag for midisport-firmware would be:
(GPLv2+ or MIT) and Redistributable, no modification permitted
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-list
You're absolutely correct that some don't get credited by GNU+Linux,
but how is that a logical reason to credit the smaller contributor
Linux and not the larger contributor GNU?
I didn't say the larger contributors shouldn't get credited. I object
to the FSF asking for credit *only for
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Joe Klemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 07:40 -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish. As if changing the name will
change the nature of the
Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at writes:
Antonio Olivares olivares14031 at yahoo.com writes:
A Because Fedora includes Firmware and those guys don't.
Bullsh*t!
BLAG 7 ships:
[gmane tells me to prune]
I am the maintainer of BLAG and I basically agree with what you've said
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?
Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within the various Linux-based
Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at writes:
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
If you find any such problems in BLAG 8 (never formally released)
or BLAG 9 (released easier today), please report them.
Here's some I found at a quick glance:
Thank you for your
I didn't say the larger contributors shouldn't get credited. I object
to the FSF asking for credit *only for them*. Asking for Linux
distros to be called GNU/Linux makes it sound like the FSF created
Linux, Firefox, Apache, Perl, Gnome, OO, and all those other big parts
of common distros.
Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at writes:
I wrote:
Claims to be GPLv2, but only the firmware loader is GPLv2 (actually dual
GPLv2 or BSD).
Or rather, GPLv2+ or MIT.
So in total, the correct License tag for midisport-firmware would be:
(GPLv2+ or MIT) and Redistributable, no
Francis Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just putting it out there, but Gnome is a GNU project... or at least it
was before the GNOME Foundation was created, and is still advertised as
such on GNU's site.
GNOME is still part of the GNU project.
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Bjoern Schiessle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just putting it out there, but Gnome is a GNU project... or at least it
was before the GNOME Foundation was created, and is still advertised as
such on GNU's site.
GNOME is still
On Jul 15, 2008, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to the FSF asking for credit *only for them*.
Then you object to something they don't do.
And that's covered in the FAQ as well.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu
Asking for Linux distros to be called GNU/Linux
Les Mikesell wrote:
I ran across a surprisingly perceptive description of the confusion of
GPL restrictions with freedom here:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255from=rss.
I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
Perceptive is not what I thought
Mark Haney wrote:
Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
'GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish.
It isn't. Stallman's concern is for our Freedom to use the computers
that we purchase for our own ends and needs, rather than as dictated to
us by someone else.
Les Mikesell wrote:
A rare bit of honesty there:
In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main”
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux”
You're reading it
Gordon Messmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if it is inappropriate to include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux
distribution, then it is even more strongly inappropriate to call it
Linux.
I agree. Let's call it Fedora instead.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
A rare bit of honesty there:
In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main”
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux”
You're reading it
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I ran across a surprisingly perceptive description of the confusion of
GPL restrictions with freedom here:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/1832255from=rss.
I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
Perceptive is not what I thought
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
A rare bit of honesty there:
In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main”
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux”
Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
Perceptive is not what I thought of the author. The entire article
is a pompous straw-man argument. Find one place in that article where
the author cites any person who actually
Gordon Messmer wrote:
It's not an either/or question. They are right that it is
inappropriate but in both cases, not just the straw man they set up.
Call it Fedora, call it freebsd, call it OpenSolaris, and leave
politics out of it.
I don't think that they're arguing at all that it's
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Stallman's concern is for our Freedom to use the computers
that we purchase for our own ends and needs, rather than as dictated to
us by someone else. Linus has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care
about that Freedom, and RMS would be a fool to step aside and let
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Stallman's concern is for our Freedom to use the computers that we
purchase for our own ends and needs, rather than as dictated to us
by someone else. Linus has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care
about that Freedom, and RMS would be a fool to
Les Mikesell wrote:
But it is equally ridiculous either way, when 80+% is neither GNU nor
Linux code. Calling it an xwindow system would make more sense. Or
perhaps a firefox/thunderbird/openoffice.org system - with most of the
other parts interchangeable.
If you're talking about a
Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com writes:
Why not name it something that gives the appropriate credit to the 83.5%
that has nothing to do with GNU
Then let's call it KDE/GNU/Linux. :-)
Did you know:
* excluding game data (nexuiz-data, vegastrike-data, openarena,
alienarena-data), the
onsdagen den 16 juli 2008 skrev Gordon Messmer:
Les Mikesell wrote:
But it is equally ridiculous either way, when 80+% is neither GNU nor
Linux code. Calling it an xwindow system would make more sense. Or
perhaps a firefox/thunderbird/openoffice.org system - with most of the
other parts
Gordon Messmer wrote:
GNU/Linux is an operating system. It implements the interfaces
described by POSIX. Applications written to conform to that standard
will build and run on GNU/Linux.
Linux is a kernel. It implements no documented standard (and maintains
a policy against stable
At 07:49 PM 7/15/2008, you wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:57:06 +0100
From: Timothy Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
To: fedora-list@redhat.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gordon
Björn Persson wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
GNU/Linux is an operating system. It implements the interfaces
described by POSIX. Applications written to conform to that standard
will build and run on GNU/Linux.
Linux is a kernel. It implements no documented standard (and maintains
a policy
Gordon Messmer wrote:
I quit reading that the first time after the second paragraph.
Perceptive is not what I thought of the author. The entire article
is a pompous straw-man argument. Find one place in that article
where the author cites any person who actually evinces the attitudes
that
On Jul 13, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It contains mp3 codecs and all of the non-free stuff that fedora
does no include.
There's a faulty assumption here.
mp3 codecs are not necessarily non-Free. The existence of a patent
valid in a few countries doesn't turn all
On Jul 14, 2008, g [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
read a few pages on gnu site and you will believe gnu is only one who
has written anything for linux, other than linus t.
Heh. If you came out of the gnu site with that impression, there's
something that needs to be fixed somewhere.
The GNU Project
On Jul 13, 2008, Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
With the current policies, more and more non-Free Software is being
welcomed into Fedora.
You're intentionally omitting one detail: all that non-Free software
isn't software which runs on the
Antonio Olivares olivares14031 at yahoo.com writes:
A Because Fedora includes Firmware and those guys don't.
Bullsh*t!
BLAG 7 ships:
* the original Fedora 7 kernels as the default and kernel-libre only as an
option,
* the following firmwares: asterisk-firmware, atmel-firmware,
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20080714 11:24]:
[snip: the same f*cking discussion that has made the rounds
*COUNTLESS* of times already]
Okay, invocation of Goodwins Law to *KILL* this thread.
You are behaving like a little Nazi with your _repeated_ attempts to
shout everyone down with
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
gNewsSense just recently came around and they are on the list. What's
up with that?
Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
On Jul 14, 2008, Mark Haney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think the demand by Stallman, and others to call Linux
GNU/Linux' is just stupid and childish. As if changing the name will
change the nature of the system.
Whereas the demand by others to call the GNU system Linux isn't?
On Jul 14, 2008, Anders Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or - do what was suggested you do a Long time ago, take your
argument upstream and it'll filter down to Fedora eventually.
What upstream are you talking about? I assume you're so misinformed
that you mean it's the kernel Linux
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?
Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within the various Linux-based
distributions, yet who do not get
Wireless firmware inclusion I'd imagine.
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 01:24 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
gNewsSense just recently came around and they are on the list. What's
up with that?
Francis Earl wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 01:24 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
gNewsSense just recently came around and they are on the list. What's
up with that?
Wireless firmware
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Francis Earl wrote:
Wireless firmware inclusion I'd imagine.
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 01:24 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
gNewsSense just recently came around and
Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
wireless firmware inclusion? in what way? AFAIK, you still have to
download the broadcom drivers after the fact. has that changed while
i wasn't looking?
i don't know about broadcom but e.g. the firmware for intel wlan devices
is part of Fedora
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:29:04 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Francis Earl wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 01:24 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
[...]
Wireless firmware inclusion I'd
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Wireless firmware inclusion I'd imagine.
How is it that Fedora is not on this list?
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
gNewsSense just recently came around and they are on the list. What's
up with that?
(please don't
201 - 300 of 307 matches
Mail list logo
