old topic, still actual...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Karl Goetz wrote:
> As there was a bit of a diversion , could we get an english summary
> when you're done? :)
this is the license text for the native_client code by google
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/trunk/src/native_client/COPYI
> > I assume you mean 'check to the distribution is correct and the
> > problems are upstream', rather then 'ignore the analysis of all
> > other distributions. Is my understanding correct? thanks, kk
>
> nope. sometimes distributions are wrong.
Anybody can be wrong, that's why no analysis on
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Karl Goetz wrote:
>
> I assume you mean 'check to the distribution is correct and the
> problems are upstream', rather then 'ignore the analysis of all
> other distributions. Is my understanding correct? thanks, kk
nope. sometimes distributions are wrong.
debian for instan
2011/3/26 Karl Goetz :
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:20:15 +0100
> Jaromil wrote:
>
>>
>> re all,
>
> hey,
>
>> now i'm sorry for what happened and in general i also recommend to
>> base your analysis on the original source code distributor and not on
>> the distributions.
>
> I assume you mean 'check
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:18:41 -0500
Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> El 23/03/11 12:09, Daniel Olivera escribió:
> > El 23/03/11 17:37, Nicolás Reynolds escribió:
> > ..
> >
> >>> Yo me retiro.
> >>
> Daniel has left the list. The translation below:
>
> Goodbye everyone this list has got me tyred.
> One
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:20:15 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
>
> re all,
hey,
> now i'm sorry for what happened and in general i also recommend to
> base your analysis on the original source code distributor and not on
> the distributions.
I assume you mean 'check to the distribution is correct and the
now i'm sorry for what happened and in general i also recommend to
base your analysis on the original source code distributor and not on
the distributions.
I agree. Nevertheless, Daniel is very sensible to any opinion. He tends
to feel attacked by the least expression of disagreement. He is a
re all,
i can see two problems in how this discussion has evolved.
one is language: use of "proper" english spelled in long and fairly
complicated phrases to enforce a position that was answered (let's
trust at the "upstream"); the other one is a deja vu from the Lame
diatribe wether is free or
El 23/03/11 12:09, Daniel Olivera escribió:
El 23/03/11 17:37, Nicolás Reynolds escribió:
..
May I ask if you do that with every package, and if that is the reason
for leaving blobs inside UTUTO's kernel? They say is GPL2 after all.
Saludos a todos esta lista me canso.
Una mas
No se es me
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:17:47 +0100
Daniel Olivera wrote:
> El 23/03/11 17:04, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
> >
> >>> Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
> >>> verified free software?
> >>
> >> Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
> >> You can download alse
Daniel Olivera wrote:
Saludos a todos esta lista me canso.
Una mas
This list is meant for cooperation between distributions around the
world. I think the best way to make that work is to keep discussion in
English.
Quiliro Ordóñez wrote ..
> Nevertheless, it says "all rights reserved". Doesn't that mean that all
> other right not specifically mentioned are reserved?
Yes, but it's not due to that satement. With today's copyright law, "All Rights
Reserved" is the default state of things -- automatically, just
El 23/03/11 17:44, Jason Self escribió:
Quiliro Ordóñez wrote ..
Does this mean you cannot have the freedom to modify this information
file?
It doesn't specifically say that, no... only that "you may recompile and
redistribute." Nothing more.
Nevertheless, it says "all rights reserved". Doesn
Quiliro Ordóñez wrote ..
> Does this mean you cannot have the freedom to modify this information
> file?
It doesn't specifically say that, no... only that "you may recompile and
redistribute." Nothing more.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
El 23/03/11 12:09, Daniel Olivera escribió:
El 23/03/11 17:37, Nicolás Reynolds escribió:
..
May I ask if you do that with every package, and if that is the reason
for leaving blobs inside UTUTO's kernel? They say is GPL2 after all.
Saludos a todos esta lista me canso.
Una mas
No se es me
El 23/03/11 17:37, Nicolás Reynolds escribió:
..
>>> May I ask if you do that with every package, and if that is the reason
>>> for leaving blobs inside UTUTO's kernel? They say is GPL2 after all.
>>
>> Saludos a todos esta lista me canso.
>> Una mas
>>
>> No se es mejor porque el otro sea peo
El 23/03/11 10:25, crap0101 escribió:
Il giorno mer, 23/03/2011 alle 09.42 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez ha scritto:
Thank you very much people.
I now have a clearer panorama. Can conclude (as of the info provided)
that Debian and Ubuntu introduce a lot of files/licencing changes in
Chromium that are
El 23/03/11 05:17, Daniel Olivera dijo:
> El 23/03/11 17:04, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
> >
> >>> Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
> >>> verified free software?
> >>
> >> Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
> >> You can download alse an svn copy for dev
El 23/03/11 11:17, Daniel Olivera escribió:
El 23/03/11 17:04, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
verified free software?
Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
You can download alse an svn copy for developers at src.chromium.or
El 23/03/11 10:14, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
I now have a clearer panorama.
How?
With the info provided in this thread and the one in Ututo's list.
Can conclude (as of the info
provided) that Debian and Ubuntu introduce a lot of files/licencing
changes in Chromium that are not on the source
El 23/03/11 17:04, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
>
>>> Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
>>> verified free software?
>>
>> Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
>> You can download alse an svn copy for developers at src.chromium.org
>
> So, either you verifi
> > Do you know where to find a chromium source tarball which is
> > verified free software?
>
> Please try in "super secret" site at www.chromium.org
> You can download alse an svn copy for developers at src.chromium.org
So, either you verified that those sources are free software or you
think
Il giorno mer, 23/03/2011 alle 09.42 -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez ha scritto:
> Thank you very much people.
>
> I now have a clearer panorama. Can conclude (as of the info provided)
> that Debian and Ubuntu introduce a lot of files/licencing changes in
> Chromium that are not on the source of Chromium
> I now have a clearer panorama.
How?
> Can conclude (as of the info
> provided) that Debian and Ubuntu introduce a lot of files/licencing
> changes in Chromium that are not on the source of Chromium?
No, they don't. What they do is actually look into the files they
distribute instead of assum
Thank you very much people.
I now have a clearer panorama. Can conclude (as of the info provided)
that Debian and Ubuntu introduce a lot of files/licencing changes in
Chromium that are not on the source of Chromium?
El 23/03/11 13:23, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
>
>>> It includes things marked as Copyright: UNKNOWN: License: *No
>>> copyright* UNKNOWN
>>>
>>
>> That is problem only for ubuntu or debian.
>
> I don't understand why, could you explain this?
>
I dont use more of my time for these.
>>> The debia
> > It includes things marked as Copyright: UNKNOWN: License: *No
> > copyright* UNKNOWN
> >
>
> That is problem only for ubuntu or debian.
I don't understand why, could you explain this?
> > The debian one (they have it in stable/main) is about the same.
> >
> >> ¿Could someone specify which
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:56:17 +0100
Daniel Olivera wrote:
> El 23/03/11 03:36, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
> > The copyright file provided by google (the one linked at the LP
> > blacklist) is ok, but the actual copyright file provided by Ubuntu
> > is this humongous thing:
> > http://changelogs.ub
El 23/03/11 03:36, Rubén Rodríguez escribió:
>
>> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist#chromium-browser says:
>>
>> (1) Copyright or license of some code is unclear
>> (2) Links to proprietary plugins.
>
> The copyright file provided by google (the one linked at the LP
> blacklist) is o
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist#chromium-browser says:
>
> (1) Copyright or license of some code is unclear
> (2) Links to proprietary plugins.
The copyright file provided by google (the one linked at the LP
blacklist) is ok, but the actual copyright file provided by Ubuntu is
t
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Software_blacklist#chromium-browser says:
(1) Copyright or license of some code is unclear
(2) Links to proprietary plugins.
¿Could someone specify which so it can be removed/replaced for Ututo?
31 matches
Mail list logo
