Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Disabling some of our Mail Lists

On 04/20/10 22:52, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Hello, > As suggested in bug 291860, I am heading up an infra cleanup project to > disable/close some mailing lists. Since the list is quite large, I want > to send it out for RFC. Going by archives.gentoo.org stats, the following lists are also inactive

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki

On 04/10/10 11:25, William Hubbs wrote: Yes, it does. However, I would tend to question how practical their audio captcha is. Go to www.captcha.net and try the demo a few times and see how much luck you have solving audio captchas from it. Just for reference, I tried 15 different sound clips

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 03/31/10 16:28, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google Docs to participate. While I do appreciate projects like TechTalks and Summer of Code I personally do not trust Google wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps

On 03/04/10 12:53, Ben de Groot wrote: Exactly. The last time I owned a printer is over 5 years ago. So I don't think cups warrants to be in the standard desktop profile. Cheers, I print almost daily, but I'm not sure if printers are commonplace enough for cups to be a default. Some users may

Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Not sure what we should do about this one. The crucial sentence is: > , > | Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts > | with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text. > ` > > Any opinions? It seems fine to me. I think it's somewh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

Harald van D3k wrote: > Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an > option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE > conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or > expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Jeroen Roovers wrote: > No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or > later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 > or later". > > That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not > in any way a promise that whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

Greg KH wrote: > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am > talking about here. I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Duncan wrote: > Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably > thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1 > had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it > was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Shouldn't all licenses listed at > (unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be > the following: Great idea, that would remove a lot of hassle. Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're GPL

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

Greg KH wrote: > The fact that some people claim that the firmware blobs somehow violate > the GPLv2 license of the kernel is a claim, not a fact, so please do not > state it as such. Hi Greg, Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood my point though. I wasn't saying that the firmware v

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

Rémi Cardona wrote: > Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless. Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it. > I'

[gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

rected. I'm not sure if I'd really be able to help much on the technical side, but if this garners any cooperation, I'll gladly help out with anything I can. If someone could point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. Kind Regards, Vincent Launchbury.