http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12554/1090/
--
is the FSF about to pardon Novell?
By Sam Varghese
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Has the Free Software Foundation, like many others, chosen the path of
least resistance and decided to bend with the wind? A Reuters report
about the
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN3046168420070531
--
Novell won't be punished for Microsoft deal - source
May 31, 2007
By Jim Finkle
BOSTON (Reuters) - A foundation that owns rights to much of the code
behind Linux software has decided not to carry out threats to punish
Novell
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
The foundation controls rights to a group of programs known as the GNU
operating system, an important part of Linux.
[...]
Er.. Actually I'd rather say The foundation controls rights to the GNU
operating system, of which the Linux
Paolo Gianrossi wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
The foundation controls rights to a group of programs known as the GNU
operating system, an important part of Linux.
[...]
Er.. Actually I'd rather say The foundation controls rights to the GNU
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On May 31, 6:38 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
--
John Hasler
On May 31, 6:38 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
--
John Hasler
On May 28, 1:06 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 14:56 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
be described as a copyright license. In fact, most copyright licenses
--those between authors and publishers for example-- are contracts as well.
No, there are
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12554/1090/
--
is the FSF about to pardon Novell?
By Sam Varghese
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Has the Free Software Foundation, like many others, chosen the path of
least resistance and decided to bend with the
rjack wrote:
[...]
Yikes!
ACT put the fear of the Lord in Herr Moglen, Stallman and Perens.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2111879,00.asp
Never underestimate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgezxJJa6aU. :-)
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12566/1090/
--
GPLv3: the sting
ROFL.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
--
We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the
fourth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to
provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software
from you, that protection is automatically
http://www.crn.com/software/199800125
-
GPL 3 'Last Call' Draft Issued, Adoption Date Set In June
By Stacy Cowley, CRN
4:53 PM EDT The Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued a last call
draft of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 today, the final
iteration in a two-year drafting
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
No, it's both. Some people read it and post to it through usenet,
-
China Martens (IDG News Service)
[...]
By incompatible, the FSF means that it sees no legal way to combine code
licensed under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3. Such incompatibility is only
an issue if developers want to link, merge or combine code from programs
licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
structurally
Once again (albeit different link):
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040715212732854
quote
Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates
many traditional principles of copyright law into a single
analytical
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:51:34 -0500 rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can write a POSIX compliant shell that shares not one line of
code with another POSIX compliant shell. You can write a C++ compiler
that is structurally completely different from another C++
16 matches
Mail list logo