On 8/8/2009, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:59:56 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is
On Sunday 09 August 2009 02:11:46 Jeff McClintock wrote:
Chris Cannam
... but it's probably
illegal and certainly unethical to redistribute someone else's work
without attribution (a basic necessity of copyright which the GPL
doesn't disclaim).
The BSD license originally required
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net mailto:ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law
says that yes
they can fork the project.
Trademark
On Friday 07 August 2009 20:10:14 you wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere
exactly
about this point and they vehemently disagree with any attitude like
that. We
all know very
On Friday 07 August 2009 20:53:05 Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.netwrote:
I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.
Assumed that Miss B. forks a GPL'd project, as
On Friday 07 August 2009 21:15:39 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
It's weekend :D.
You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that
yes they can fork the project.
Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed
Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 20:53:05 Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.netwrote:
I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.
Assumed
There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons
should be forced as an
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the
front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons
Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very
good audio application and a very useless Japanese code conversion.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Saturday 08 August 2009 07:08:25 you wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the
front
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
Okay, maybe for
On Saturday 08 August 2009 06:45:25 Raymond Martin wrote:
Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.
Ah. Trademarks can be used properly with Free Software. For the benefit of the
trademark holder's users rather than for the benefit of the
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything
to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program.
Sorry
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
This is just like the fact that there is no fork at present.
Raymond, I notice that your binary distribution of Impro-Visor lacks a
copyright note identifying the authors -- the README could be taken to
imply that you are
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything
to be done about this for
On Saturday 08 August 2009 13:25:09 you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
This is just like the fact that there is no fork at present.
Raymond, I notice that your binary distribution of Impro-Visor lacks a
copyright note identifying the authors --
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the name? If your fork
of the project
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
Does it really matter? Do you really need to keep the
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply against free software because nothing is sold.
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 04:27 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:06:52 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:36 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
Yes this would apply for the commercial product against any others that
are sold. It won't apply
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas Vecchione wrote:
he standard is likelihood of confusion. To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if
it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or
as to
On 08/09/2009 05:30 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:19:09 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 12:34:26 Thomas Vecchione wrote:
he standard is likelihood of confusion. To be more specific, the use of
a trademark in connection with the sale of a good
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually
forking the project when
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps
On Saturday 08 August 2009 09:59:45 Raymond Martin wrote:
In fact, you will find that some experts on these matters always recommend
to openly welcome forks
Personally, when it comes to my stuff, I do.
I tend to do more on the artistic side than on the code side and run into what
I consider
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Patrick
Shirkeypshir...@boosthardware.com wrote:
split [...] but not an outright fork?
Hey -- it's a spork!
Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for
making a fork? Why have you now
On 08/09/2009 06:10 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:59:56 you wrote:
On 08/09/2009 06:05 AM, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:44:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide
that you
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
What possible counter-argument can there be left?
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
why
On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net
wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
What possible counter-argument can there be left?
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following
one) again for Raymond, with attribution:
Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: The claim that a GPL violation
could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that
On Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following
one) again for Raymond, with attribution:
Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: The claim that a GPL
Raymond Martin wrote:
That's nice, but I would like for someone to show me how this pertains to the
current line of discussion. The fact is that code does become GPL once you
mix it with other GPL code.
Hi Raymond :)
I searched the web and discussed this also off-list.
Today in the early
On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net
wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com
wrote:
What possible
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:14:23AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even
a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally
acquired property. If any of it has to be seized, for
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:14:23AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even
a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally
acquired property. If
On Friday 07 August 2009 10:07:31 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:14:23AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 08:56:30 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even
a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally
There are cases in the US, for instance, where people growing marijuana
for their medical conditions have had their homes seized and never returned.
No justice there. That's real police stuff.
Sometimes western civilization behaves like the Third Reich did, but for
FLOSS I never read or
On Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote:
On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following
one)
Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 09:51:05 you wrote:
On 7 Aug 2009, at 12:55, Raymond Martin wrote:
On Friday 07 August 2009 06:51:08 Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorfralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net
For emphasis, I just want to
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
Regardless of all this: a private person or group
can't ever do this. Only law enforcement or the
justice system can, and in the case of the first
it is temporary (for securtiy or investigation),
and if not it needs
On Friday 07 August 2009 12:40:44 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Raymond Martin wrote:
Regardless of all this: a private person or group
can't ever do this. Only law enforcement or the
justice system can, and in the case of the first
it is temporary
On Friday 07 August 2009 13:10:50 Raymond Martin wrote:
Show me where I have done something wrong. I am not seizing anything
by taking what is freely given. Make sense. I showed in another post that
there is nothing wrong with decompilation under GPL
I don't see you as having done something
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Naturally, forking a GPL project is OK.
Forking a project and calling it something nearly identical (removing
a dash) cannot help but generate confusion and is an example of
hostile fork.
Here are some guidelines for forking, which seem
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Robert Kellerkel...@cs.hmc.edu wrote:
Don't bother to reply. I leave this group with a fair amount of
bitterness and disappointment in the way one of your members has
conducted himself.
One of our members? Nobody else on this list had ever heard of him
either,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:46:42PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Robert Kellerkel...@cs.hmc.edu wrote:
Don't bother to reply. I leave this group with a fair amount of
bitterness and disappointment in the way one of your members has
conducted himself.
One of
On Friday 07 August 2009 17:31:36 Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Naturally, forking a GPL project is OK.
Forking a project and calling it something nearly identical (removing
a dash) cannot help but generate confusion and is an example of
hostile fork.
Forgot to send to the list.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Vecchione seabla...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. There is even evidence in the FSF documentation somewhere
exactly
about this point and they vehemently
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Forgot to send to the list.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Thomas Vecchione seabla...@gmail.com
mailto:seabla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Martin lase...@gmail.com
mailto:lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. There
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.netwrote:
I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.
Assumed that Miss B. forks a GPL'd project, as far as I understand the GPL,
Miss R. is allowed to fork a
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.
It's weekend :D.
You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law. Copyright law says that yes
they can fork the project.
Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed to follow up legally to
prevent a trademark, which can
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:11 AM, drew Robertsz...@100jamz.com wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote:
You cannot claim someone failed to distribute software under the GPL, and
at the same time take said software and excercise the rights that *would*
have been granted to
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
I don't think this is correct. It would only mean
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear.
No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they
don't claim their own code to
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Robertsz...@100jamz.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote:
The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are
prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor
code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
Nonetheless, any
code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license.
This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than
On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:59:39 Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Robertsz...@100jamz.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote:
The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are
prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
Nonetheless, any
code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
license.
This is
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
Nonetheless, any
code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
regardless of any
Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:59:39 Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Robertsz...@100jamz.com wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote:
The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are
prepared to accept
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not
clear.
No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make
On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this
On Thursday 06 August 2009 14:46:18 Raymond Martin wrote:
What possible counter-argument can there be left?
You didn't read the GPL? You didn't understand it? You thought the GPL was
like the BSD? Make some up.
I do get you point. Just don't agree yet. But I don't think it is worth it at
this
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
What possible counter-argument can there be left?
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
why you're wrong)
Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote:
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote:
This was all in the context
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martinlase...@gmail.com wrote:
What possible counter-argument can there be left?
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
why you're wrong)
Chris
The claim that a GPL violation could lead to
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 Simon Jenkins wrote:
Until and unless you have Bob's preview source files
with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license for
the mods in that code.
Huh?
If I get a binary from someone that claims to be GPL, the GPL surely gives me
the
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:12:44 Simon Jenkins wrote:
He
SHOULD have licensed his modifications under the GPL but he DIDN'T
(remember?) which means you don't have a license for the modifications.
Where do you see this breaking down?
Let's take a few made up examples:
I write a program
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to GPL
the code he would be in violation of the original author's copyrights (this
is a generic he
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote:
You cannot claim someone failed to distribute software under the GPL, and
at the same time take said software and excercise the rights that *would*
have been granted to you *if* the software was distributed under the GPL.
I think you
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to
GPL the code he would be in violation of
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:20:18 Chris Cannam wrote:
An appropriate remedy for the problem might be for you
to ensure that you comply with my license (e.g. publish under the GPL)
or desist from publication, but your users can't enact that remedy for
themselves.
Chris
Chris,
I think this
On 6 Aug 2009, at 01:44, drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 20:32:03 Simon Jenkins wrote:
Until and unless you have Bob's preview source files
with GPL headers all present and correct, you don't have a license
for
the mods in that code.
Huh?
If I get a binary from someone that
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:38:18PM -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is
the viral nature of GPL. (...) The code is automatically GPL by way of use
of other GPL code.
This is actually entirely wrong.
For someone constantly
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
This is not true. It may simply make it code that was distributed in
violation of the GPL.
Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing
Robert Keller wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:44 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:44 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:38:18PM -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. That is
the viral nature of GPL. (...) The code is automatically GPL by way of
use of other GPL code.
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
This is not true. It may simply make it code that was distributed in
violation of the GPL.
You are wrong. Read the GPL.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:08 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code.
This is not true. It may simply make it code that was distributed
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 08:08 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
you wrote?
I can't understand how you could ever look into a mirror with good
conscience while having your mail user agent configured in such a way as
to use a you instead of a name.
This
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 08:30:00 Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 08:08 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 04:21:08 you wrote:
you wrote?
I can't understand how you could ever look into a mirror with good
conscience while having your mail user agent
Robert Keller wrote:
Dear linux-audio developers,
I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
visor/
Thanks
for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. I will populate the
source later today, as I need time to get acquainted with their
system, but I have to be
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 02:28 -0700, Robert Keller wrote:
There are copyright and GPL notices in every non-trivial source file.
Do I have to add another separate file as well?
You should include the text of the GPL in a file usually called COPYING.
See
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 05:08:49 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Dear linux-audio developers,
I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
visor/
Thanks
for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. I will populate the
source later today, as I need
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 05:08:49 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Dear linux-audio developers,
I have created New Project https://sourceforge.net/projects/impro-
visor/
Thanks
for Impro-Visor, which is its correct name. I will
Hi,
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 11:28:39 Robert Keller wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Ok, I see there is a svn version:
|svn co https://impro-visor.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/impro-visor
impro-visor |
I don't see copyright and license files yet though. I think
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I should have?
I appreciate your help.
Regards,
Bob
On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Arnold Krille wrote:
Hi,
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I should have?
I appreciate your help.
In Copying it's say: GPLv2 or at your
Robert Keller wrote:
I fixed it to v2. Thanks!
Bob
Bob,
We don't post on top. Quote the relevant part and place your message
below, because of our mail archive ;)
About the licenses. I think Impro-visor should have the same license of
the GPL source you use (Jmusic or something(?)).
About
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
On Jul 28, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
I fixed it to v2. Thanks!
Bob
Bob,
We don't post on top. Quote the relevant part and place your message
below, because of our mail archive ;)
Sorry, it was
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I should have?
I
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:25:51 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything else I
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
Is there anything
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, he is one big fat liar.
Do you really think this tone helps in any way whatsoever? Maybe you
should try defending the GPL with more maturity than that typical of
your average 12 year old. You expect people to take you
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, he is one big fat liar.
Do you really think this tone helps in any way whatsoever? Maybe you
should try defending the GPL with more maturity than that typical of
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 18:58:40 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
One of the main reasons why R. Stallman started GNU/FSF/GPL because of
it's social aspect. You learn kids on schools for example to corporate
and help
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:36 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 19:05:57 David Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:51 -0400, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, he is one big fat liar.
Do you really think this tone helps in any way whatsoever? Maybe you
On Jul 28, 2009, at 3:44 PM, lase...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 13:58:06 Grammostola Rosea wrote:
Robert Keller wrote:
Arnold, thank you. I think I have everything in SF now. I added GPL
notice to the package-info.java files and added INSTALL.txt,
COPYING.txt, and LICENSE.txt.
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
