Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
No, but could you add Win2000? ktnks.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
| > ridiculous license (wh
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:32:03 -0500 Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally
| culpable for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in
| our tree violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds
| then the origi
On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > > > it, not forcing their ideal
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringem
Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringemen
On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
> > > license
> > > (when you want to see it as one) w
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> > > if i wanted that i would run debian
> >
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
> | > ridiculous license (when you want to s
25.12.2005, 4:17:05, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
>> license
>> (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion1 about several
>> months ago.
> im sorry i fail to se
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
> > license
> > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> > months ago.
>
> im
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
> > license
> > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> > months ago.
>
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
| > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
| > discussion¹ about several month
On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> License in question...
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
> > for those that dont know thei
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
> (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> months ago.
im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licenc
25.12.2005, 3:51:15, Brian Harring wrote:
> Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo,
> that's not the issue.
> The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however
> horrid the license is).
> Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
Carsten
[1] http://tinyurl.com/9oxgc
pgpHcVb3ubq0c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
License in question...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
> for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
> and got them sub
25.12.2005, 3:11:53, Bret Towe wrote:
> i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev thinks
> that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding it, not
> forcing their ideals onto the user if i wanted that i would run debian
Erm, we are not forcing our ideal on use
earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
due to the way the licence was done
my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
as i dont s
21 matches
Mail list logo
