On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:12:09AM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:16:11AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > Everyone loses from binary only modules. I point you again to
> > http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html as well as
> > http://lwn.net/Articles
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:16:11AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> Everyone loses from binary only modules. I point you again to
> http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html as well as
> http://lwn.net/Articles/162686/.
No, only Linux vendors and users loose from binary only drivers. In
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:01:28PM +0300, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> ?, 30 ? 2006, 22:51, ?? ??? Muli Ben-Yehuda:
> > Just because something is illegal does not mean people do not indulge
> > in it. It does mean they shouldn't, though. In my humble opinion it is
> > only a matter of
Hi,
I use the following script to read simple Hebrew doc documents:
#!/bin/sh
/usr/bin/antiword -w 70 $2 -m 8859-8.txt $1 | /usr/bin/bidiv -j -w 70 | sed
's/[ ][ ]*$//' | sed -e :a -e 's/^.\{1,69\}$/ &/;ta'
Lately (maybe this has to do with the move to a 64-bit system) I
get the foll
I found the solution, just wanted it to appear on the archive.
it seems fedora (and all redhat distros) needs compat libraries for WAS.
- Original Message
From: Nzer Zaidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "linux-il@linux.org.il"
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:20:32 PM
Subject: websphere a
Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, paul wrote:
Under GPL you can do whatever you want for yourself or your
organisation (perhaps 'company' might have been a better word) BUT if
you make it available to others you must make the source available in
some format.
Where do you take this or
ביום ראשון, 30 ביולי 2006, 22:51, נכתב על ידי Muli Ben-Yehuda:
> Just because something is illegal does not mean people do not indulge
> in it. It does mean they shouldn't, though. In my humble opinion it is
> only a matter of time until someone sues a distributor of a binary
> only kernel module a
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, paul wrote:
Under GPL you can do whatever you want for yourself or your organisation
(perhaps 'company' might have been a better word) BUT if you make it
available to others you must make the source available in some format.
Where do you take this organisation or company
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:04:12PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:32:52PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>
> > Dual licensing is subtle, but doable. I'm not sure what "totaly
> > freeware" means from a license point of view, but OCO (more commonly
> > referred to a
Matan Ziv-Av wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, paul wrote:
This has to be qualified - it is only "illegal" if you pass it onto
someone else, for use only by yourself (or your organisation) you can
do what you want.
This is just wrong. There is no such thing as "organisation" in copyright
laws. You
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, paul wrote:
This has to be qualified - it is only "illegal" if you pass it onto someone
else, for use only by yourself (or your organisation) you can do what you
want.
This is just wrong. There is no such thing as "organisation" in copyright
laws. You are not allowed to p
ביום ראשון, 30 ביולי 2006, 20:59, נכתב על ידי paul:
> This has to be qualified - it is only "illegal" if you pass it onto
> someone else, for use only by yourself (or your organisation) you can do
> what you want.
This is because of the first freedom granted by the GPL: the ability for you
to mod
Diego Iastrubni wrote:
ביום ראשון, 30 ביולי 2006, 10:08, נכתב על ידי Gilad Ben-Yossef:
Trust me, I work as a consultant to/with lawyers that provide legal advise
for corporation of questions of licensing. The GPL does just what it was
planned to do and does it very well, *including* having some
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:32:52PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> Dual licensing is subtle, but doable. I'm not sure what "totaly
> freeware" means from a license point of view, but OCO (more commonly
> referred to as "binary only") is
> *illegal*. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:13:24PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
To keep this relevant to Linux, there are also sorts of accomodations made
in the Linux Kernel and applications for varying sofware licenses. Just because
the Kernel itself is GPL, that does not preven
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:13:24PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:51:17PM +0300, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
>
> > "so murky and undefiend on purpose" - this is why I don't like GPL, it's
> > not
> > clear, and some parts of it can be understood differently by differ
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:13:24PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> To keep this relevant to Linux, there are also sorts of accomodations made
> in the Linux Kernel and applications for varying sofware licenses. Just
> because
> the Kernel itself is GPL, that does not prevent someone from wr
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:51:17PM +0300, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> "so murky and undefiend on purpose" - this is why I don't like GPL, it's not
> clear, and some parts of it can be understood differently by different
> people. This is a piece of text written for lawyers and not programmers.
> I
ביום ראשון, 30 ביולי 2006, 10:08, נכתב על ידי Gilad Ben-Yossef:
> Trust me, I work as a consultant to/with lawyers that provide legal advise
> for corporation of questions of licensing. The GPL does just what it was
> planned to do and does it very well, *including* having some parts so murky
> and
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:08:01AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Trust me, I work as a consultant to/with lawyers that provide legal advise
> for corporation
> of questions of licensing. The GPL does just what it was planned to do and
> does it very well,
> *including* having some parts so mur
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:20:53AM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
I would be curious to know how this is possible technically *and*
legally, i.e., without violating the kernel license (GPL).
Both Caldera (now called SCO) and SuSe sold distributions that were
licen
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:20:53AM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
I would be curious to know how this is possible technically *and*
legally, i.e., without violating the kernel license (GPL).
Both Caldera (now called SCO) and SuSe sold distributions that were
license
22 matches
Mail list logo
