On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Raj Mathur wrote:
>
> like Qt, which is supposed to do GUI work and would crawl to a halt and
> die if you started making library calls through some IPC. You might
> not even be able to do it hypothetically, depending on how closely Qt
> is bound to the X server.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
>
Ok, ok, ok!!
s/QT/Qt/g
:)
--
jaju
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Faraz Shahbazker <
faraz.shahbaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If it were so, this list would be history. BTW, you haven't actually
> respond
> to my point (yet). Do you still not see any contradiction in the above
> mentioned statements??
No, I still do not see the c
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, jtd wrote:
> While your contention is correct (ref your second para), that is not
> what i am getting at. What i am saying is that troltech's contention
> that i cannot commercially distribute gpl software is rubbish.
> Trolltech is implying that i cannot sell gpl
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Faraz Shahbazker <
faraz.shahbaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Compare 2nd line of the 2nd link with the 1st line of the 1st link:
>
> a) "it is actually available under the terms of the GNU GPL."
>vs.
> b) "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Faraz Shahbazker <
faraz.shahbaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And more .. clearly contradicting:
>
>
> http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/192?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/developer/faqs/licensing
>
> http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/191?hotspoturl=http%3A//trol
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
>
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
>
> and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)
>
> So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a
> gullible
> public by misusing the term GPL.
Sorry,
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
> shall we avoid the personal comments? Anyway I may be a blind idiot - but I
> cannot find any wording anywhere on the website which says that QT itself
> is
> released under the GPL. All I can find is that the open source edition is
> r
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Praveen A wrote:
> 2008/12/31 Ravindra Jaju :
> > have had dtrace and ZFS for Linux long back! BSD and GPL don't mix.
>
> well, it is a one way path. you can add BSD code to GPLed code. ZFS
> and dtrace are under CDDL, which is also a Fre
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 12:53:34 pm jtd wrote:
> > And
> >
> http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-lic
> >ense
>
> this is a joke. If I modify or enhance QT - then they can compel me to
> contribute such
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Praveen A wrote:
> 2008/12/30 jtd :
>
> > And
> >
> http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing/licensing#qt-open-source-license
> >
> > has more rubbish.
>
> Like?
+1 interested in knowing.
--
jaju
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM, jtd wrote:
> There was specific piece of misinformation on their licence page,
> which in effect stated that you cant use gpl software commercially. I
> pointed out to them twice that this was plain wrong. It was not
> corrected even a year later.
> So the compan
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39 AM, jtd wrote:
>
> You can use ANY GPL software commercially. I can buy or sell gpl
> software or trade it for any gods or service, the buyer/seller and i
> deem fit subject to the terms of the gpl. I DO NOT require any
> additional licence from anyone for using a gp
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Erach wrote:
> Hi,
> What do I do ?
> I have a machine with 786 MB of RAM.
> If it was Windows, I could use ALL my purchased packages on it for 3
> years --- till the Windows was replaced - I assume.
> Now, LINUX supporters say, over 3000 packages fre
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Kartik Mistry wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves
> wrote:
> >> Please don't spread FUD.
> >
> > proprietary == foss? in which language?
>
> Dual license is not problem at all. Thats why Virtualbox is available in
> Debian.
>
> And for your
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 7:02:02 pm Sachin Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> > > where did you get the 90% figure from?
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#cite_note-5
>
> dear friend, I asked for source - not wikipedia. Wikipe
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
>
>
> What am I missing in your arguments?
>
Oh, and did I mention: VirtualBox is *awesome*!
I run OpenSolaris and Windows XP on it - without leaving my GNU/Linux
desktop.
And not a single hair-pulling moment :)
--
jaju
--
ht
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>
> proprietary is proprietary and foss is foss - and never shall the twain
> meet.
> A product that claims to combine the two is the worst kind of hypocrisy and
> does not deserve discussion on this list. The devil can quote scripture and
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:16 PM, jtd wrote:
> The "other" licence (PUEL) is definetly not FOSS. It is a closed
> personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license. Any use
> beyond the provisions of personal use is prohibited and you may not
> modify the product in any way.
1] The "oth
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> >
> > Please don't spread FUD.
>
> proprietary == foss? in which language?
>
Who claimed that proprietary == foss? Virtualbox is available under *two*
kinds of licenses - one of
which is GPL. So, where's the problem?
Thanks,
jaju
--
ht
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Puneet Lakhina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was wondering if something similar for the shell would be useful. It could
> for example alter the history to only have the commands that you used in the
> context of working on a paritcular task. It could maybe even
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Arun Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is a case of incomplete proof reading.
>
> I have read the article and saw Dr. Phatak's name spelt correctly in 2
> places, only in the last instance did I notice the error.
>
> It happens. Have we not all, at one t
Good to know IITB taking forward the good thing they have been part of
(along with our awesome FOSS leaders!)
http://in.rediff.com/money/2008/may/28iit.htm
But itś rediff, and somethingś gotta be broken! It is Dr. Phatak, and
not Dr. Pathak.
--
jaju
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Rediff had a _very_ short-lived front-page news item on ISO approval of OOXML.
It immediately started attracting anti-OOXML comments, and they
promptly relegated it to
their backside... (no pun intended)
(Devil's advocate) - MS PR managers at work?
http://in.rediff.com/money/2008/apr/03ms.htm
Giv
[Top-posting because not replying to any specific point]
You have got to give it to these guys (MS). They know how to find their way out.
If OOXML becomes a standard even after the surfacing of irregularities
(http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/03/31/0039238.shtml), then it is the ISO which
should b
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Arun Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Nishit Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from
> > Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing
> > standard!! As an interested group, we
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Nadeem M. Khan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has an entry in the passwd file. That makes it a valid linux user.
> 65535 or 65536 is its GID on RH based systems. Thats default. You can
> ofcourse change the name, the GID, or whatever.
Oh, interesting. Can yo
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 08:12 +0400, Nadeem M. Khan wrote:
> nobody it the user NFS uses for its functioning. It is a valid Linux
> user. Its GID is 65535 I think.
>
> grep nobody /etc/passwd
It's a popularly used user-name, but it's not really correct to say that
it's a "valid Linux user". Nor i
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ravindra Jaju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Both are related. Increase in business is an absolute goal for most.
> > Being near the top in google resul
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Both are related. Increase in business is an absolute goal for most.
> > Being near the top in google results _gets_ you more business,
> > anecdotally
> > speaking. It's one of the aspects for most online bu
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > After reading the above, I would like to know what _your_
> > understanding of SEO is. The above is what SEO-ers do!
>
> what is the aim of a website - to increase your business or to be the
> first hit on
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 13:09 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> 1. make sure that your web page is standards compliant - lot of
> software for that
> 2. make sure it is well designed - lot of examples for that
> 3. make sure there are no broken links - lot of software for that
> 4. make sure that
32 matches
Mail list logo
