[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read this FAQ to clear your brains: http://www.ipjur.com/01.php3
I read said FAQ but I'm afraid my already foggy neurons are now totally
opaque. Perhaps an infusion of ethyl alcohol will cause them to clarify
like a fine, clear Pinot Noir.
rjack
From: Unigroup_of_NY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: UNIGROUP Meeting 21-JUN-2007 (Thu): Ubuntu Linux
** Unigroup's June 2007 meeting on Ubuntu Linux is NEXT Thursday...
(Our Solaris Field Trip to Sun Micro is tentatively in July).
==
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
>> requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
>
>Yes, but if Congress declines this invitation, then
FSF worked on various features, including but not limited to, Hurd support.
Drepper's only accusation is that FSF didn't work on Linux-kernel specific
stuff - as if they had an obligation to do so. FSF may even have realised
that others would do this work, and so it was more right for them to fo
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg0.html
>
> In response to a writing about a 1994-1997/8 event, you're pointing out an
> August 2001 event that lead to nothing?
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/cia
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg0.html
In response to a writing about a 1994-1997/8 event, you're pointing out an
August 2001 event that lead to nothing?
You're slipping, Alexander.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ ht
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> For anyone who'd like to read about the "Linux libc" fork in the mid-90s, or
> for anyone who hasn't heard this story, I've put together all the info I
> could find here:
>
> http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_lib
Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:31:00AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2.
> >
> > I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were.
> >
> > I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3.
> >
> > I'm not trying t
Here's video commentary from Fred Davis.
http://www.ijoomla.com/Blog/Joomla_Blog/Fred_Davis_comments_on_Joomla_GPL_license_debate/
He eloborated:
---
RE: Amy's Comment "You can charge for distribution!"
written by Fred Davis, June 18, 2007
Hi Amy,
I saw your post on iJoomla re: my video
For anyone who'd like to read about the "Linux libc" fork in the mid-90s, or
for anyone who hasn't heard this story, I've put together all the info I
could find here:
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_libc
--
Ciarán O'Riordan _
Ter, 2007-06-19 às 07:37 -0500, rjack escreveu:
> "When Joomla's Core Team announced its intentions to begin strict
> enforcement of the GNU General Public License, software developers who
> sell extensions started getting very worried. The problem in a nutshell:
> adding a plug-in or extension
"When Joomla's Core Team announced its intentions to begin strict
enforcement of the GNU General Public License, software developers who
sell extensions started getting very worried. The problem in a nutshell:
adding a plug-in or extension to a piece of GPL-licensed software
creates a "combined
> [...] FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're
> forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice. [...]
The FSF never had freedom of choice on their agenda, so it is quite
understandable.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-mi
Ter, 2007-06-19 às 11:44 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan escreveu:
> > > FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're
> > > forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice.
>
> Who's whole point?
>
> They're so caught up in the whole point of the freedoms they value (being
> able to help yours
> > FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're
> > forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice.
Who's whole point?
They're so caught up in the whole point of the freedoms they value (being
able to help yourself, and each person being able to cooperate with each
other is the poin
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > > "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More
> > > Contributions"
> >
> > No, seriously. Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
> > various attempts to show it to him, whenever it
Jan Harkes wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:31:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
> > > follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR choice of u
Joshua David Williams wrote:
>
> On 6/17/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
>
> > The "legal terms" is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
> > license *is*, for crying out loud!
>
> > If you don't care about th
Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Can you please acknowledge that it doesn't, such that I can feel I've
> > fulfilled my goal of dispelling the myth that the GPLv3 changes the
> > spirit of the GPL?
>
> No. I don't do metaphysics. This threa
19 matches
Mail list logo
