On 8/31/06 4:09 PM, "Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think either "unapproved" or "unauthorized" are the most
> appropriate terms. After all, the code is released under the GPL,
> and anyone who is making modifications to that code and then making
> their modified version a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm just concerned that sharing might not be the intention of the
> system owner.
No problem. Sharing this source code is perfectly fine with the
system owner. I know him well enough to know that implicitly.
- --
Todd
Todd Zullinger writes:
> If you have reason to believe that there are other factors which
> would prohibit the system owner from sharing that source code,
> feel free to point those out.
There are none to worry about, except that he/she arbitrarily decides
he/she doesn't want to.
I'm just con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You have to actually receive a distribution to have GPL rights.
> Merely having access to somebody else's copy is not enough.
The system owner most certainly allows me to access and use the source
that he was provided as par
Todd Zullinger writes:
> I do, AFAIK. Mailman is GPL'd and I have legitimate root access on
> that system so I have access to the source code. AIUI, the GPL
> doesn't permit them to restrict what I do with the source that I
> get.
You have to actually receive a distribution to have GPL righ
At 9:30 PM +0900 2006-09-01, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your post asks for more than the GPL does. I agree that it would be
> good if these companies would participate actively in the community.
> But I'm more confused than ever why you cited the GPL in support of
> that, since you write:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you actually do have the right to do so, yes, please.
I do, AFAIK. Mailman is GPL'd and I have legitimate root access on
that system so I have access to the source code. AIUI, the GPL
doesn't permit them to restrict wha
Todd Zullinger writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Has anybody at Mailman asked CPanel, Plesk, or Apple for source and
> > been refused? Or one of their customers, and been refused because
> > they were under NDA? If we haven't asked, how can we bitch?
> [...]
> I've since had the disp
Brad Knowles writes:
> I just don't have the answers to the questions you're asking me.
That's fine.
> Moreover, I don't think that it's reasonable for you to respond to me
> in this manner. What have I ever done to you?
Since you ask, lots of nice things. I've certainly benefited from
yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has anybody at Mailman asked CPanel, Plesk, or Apple for source and
> been refused? Or one of their customers, and been refused because
> they were under NDA? If we haven't asked, how can we bitch?
I asked cPanel a few yea
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/09/01 08:39 AM:
> If you want to get into a diatribe about licensing, please be aware
> that I'm a BSD guy, and I've found myself surrounded by a bunch of
> GPL types, so license-wise I've tended to say pretty quiet.
Note, the issues raised are not unique
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/09/01 01:24 AM:
> This is the key point that was not coming across to me, at least not
> until much later in the exchange. Speaking only for myself, I seriously
> misunderstood what you were asking and why, which greatly colored my
> responses.
My apologies
At 1:39 AM -0500 2006-09-01, Brad Knowles wrote:
> If you want to get into a diatribe about licensing, please be aware that
> I'm a BSD guy, and I've found myself surrounded by a bunch of GPL types,
> so license-wise I've tended to say pretty quiet.
Sorry, I meant "... stay pretty quiet". Tha
At 2:32 PM +0900 2006-09-01, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse me? The GPL *explicitly* approves and authorizes (not to
> mention implicitly encourages) modification and redistribution without
> conditions other than providing source. That's exactly what "license"
> means.
Right, and they
Brad Knowles writes:
> At 10:06 AM -0700 2006-08-31, John W. Baxter quoted "Brad Knowles"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> We're not a commercial environment, and we've actually had pretty bad
> >> experiences with people/companies that are in commercial environments
> >> taking our softwar
At 8:25 PM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> I view it differently. I have had great feedback and I highly doubt either
> of the parties mentioned viewed a response as a "restraining, difficult
> exercise". I /really/ use lists to their full advantage and with some in
> particular have n
At 8:44 PM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> The point I was illustrating is that if you have to justify the rationale
> behind a default setting to a third-party-decision-maker -- what is the most
> appropriate and concise response?
This is the key point that was not coming across to me
At 10:06 AM -0700 2006-08-31, John W. Baxter quoted "Brad Knowles"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> We're not a commercial environment, and we've actually had pretty bad
>> experiences with people/companies that are in commercial environments
>> taking our software and making unapproved modifications t
Steve Burling said the following on 2006/08/31 07:55 PM:
> Could we maybe leave this poor dead horse to rest in peace?
Only if I get a last word in edgewise :-)
> Apparently, many of the posters to this list believe (with some
> justification, imho) that it should take explicit action to undo sa
Dragon said the following on 2006/08/31 07:44 PM:
> The fact that people like Brad and Mark and others are willing to expend
> large amounts of their time responding to queries here should be taken as
> what it is, another gift to the community. I think they have gone above
and beyond the call of
>
Dragon said the following on 2006/08/31 07:44 PM:
> But if you don't like the defaults or have a reason to choose a
> different setting, you can change them at your own risk either through
> configuring each list or by overriding the setting in mm_cfg.py
I'm not criticising, and I'm more than will
--On August 31, 2006 7:08:22 PM +0200 Bretton Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Perhaps a list of "you /really/ should set these settings to X" would be
> useful to people short on time :-) Of course you could just bundle the
> product that way in the first place but where's the fun in that?
To
Bretton Vine sent the message below at 10:08 8/31/2006:
>John W. Baxter said the following on 2006/08/31 06:58 PM:
> > And, unfortunately, were I preparing a list of options for a "You really
> > ought to look at these options and check that they are set appropriately"
> > paragraph, I probably wou
John W. Baxter said the following on 2006/08/31 06:58 PM:
> And, unfortunately, were I preparing a list of options for a "You really
> ought to look at these options and check that they are set appropriately"
> paragraph, I probably wouldn't include this one. There are so many which
> are more imp
On 8/30/06 6:01 PM, "Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're not a commercial environment, and we've actually had pretty bad
> experiences with people/companies that are in commercial environments
> taking our software and making unapproved modifications to it, or
> providing the software
On 8/30/06 6:01 PM, "Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The methods of open source development pre-date Richard Stallman and
> his GNU followers. Some of us remember those days.
For example, SHARE from the 1950s. At one point, MITs 704 (or 709 or 7090
by then) data center posted a notic
Bretton Vine wrote:
>Mark Sapiro said the following on 2006/08/31 02:55 AM:
>
>> Do you have an actual message?
>
>Yes
>
>> Where did this message come from?
>
>A list-member, cc'd to non-list member (subsequently subbed)
It occurred to me that if the list has archives, the raw message as
sent t
Larry Stone wrote:
>
>Just a thought and I may be all wet here but is it possible the user is
>sending to an alias for the listname, possibly an alternative hostname for
>the machine, that mailman doesn't know is an acceptable alternative and
>therefore considers it to an implicit destination?
>
>F
Brad Knowles writes:
> At 2:07 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
>
> > (locally) it's been referred to as a "be strict in what you send, relaxed
> > in
> > what you receive" approach but not everyone adheres to (or is aware of)
> > this
> > way of looking at things and it seems
At 9:06 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> Well a lot has been generated in this discussion already, now it's just a
> case of summarising it and having someone edit. I like writing, and would
> happily contribute but I can drag on a bit so need a good editor :-P
Yeah, I have that prob
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/08/31 05:36 AM:
> It's a known serious weak spot within the Mailman project, and we'd love
> to be able to resolve this issue, but that means we need to get some
> people onboard that are good at writing documentation. Any suggestions
> you may have in this
At 4:56 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> So far my experience has been wonderful with the product, good and bad with
> the documentation, and rather difficult in terms of user-error, namely mine.
I am of the opinion that all software sucks, but some sucks less than
others. IMO, Mail
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/08/31 03:01 AM:
> The methods of open source development pre-date Richard Stallman and his
> GNU followers. Some of us remember those days.
And quite a few are still around to teach us who take the net etc for
granted which is a good thing.
> I think that
Mark Sapiro said the following on 2006/08/31 02:55 AM:
> It drove me crazy, because I knew there was
> a real explaination for every glitch, and I wanted to find it, but I
> think the 'poltergeist' explaination worked for many of the users.
Yeah, the "radial flux in the atmospheric pressure" excus
On 8/30/06 8:07 PM, Brad Knowles at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 2:22 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
>
>> Aaaah, but that's the crux of the situation. I have read the documentation.
>> I have searched the FAQs. I have asked the list and I keep getting the same
>> answer: there is no
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/08/31 02:37 AM:
> So, does my opinion count?
Of course it does. Credentials are useful, experience more so. Heck next
week we have a whole bunch of experts here to give opinions to the industry
(shameless plug for iweek)
> The person in question wouldn't ha
At 2:22 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> Aaaah, but that's the crux of the situation. I have read the documentation.
> I have searched the FAQs. I have asked the list and I keep getting the same
> answer: there is no obvious reason a {TO:listname,CC:thirdparty} post should
> result i
At 2:07 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
> (locally) it's been referred to as a "be strict in what you send, relaxed in
> what you receive" approach but not everyone adheres to (or is aware of) this
> way of looking at things and it seems antiquated to some.
It's called the Postel Prin
At 1:21 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
>> As I said above, this should never have happened as far as I can tell.
>> I'm sure one of the developers with more knowledge about this will
>> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I'm hoping for more information so I can prepare a summary of the si
Bretton Vine wrote:
>Mark Sapiro said the following on 2006/08/31 01:22 AM:
>
>> Thus of your 3 examples above, if 'list' is the list posting address
>> that Mailman expects to see, only the 3rd example will be held for
>> implicit destination because in this and only this case, Mailman
>> doesn't
Mark Sapiro said the following on 2006/08/31 01:22 AM:
> Whatever is chosen as the Defaults.py value for any particular list
> setting, some will wish it had been the other way. It is simply not
> possible to create "out of the box" defaults that will satisfy
> everyone. That is why a site can chan
Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/08/31 12:09 AM:
> We prefer to have this option default to "on", because it is safer that
> way, and people can always choose to set their choice to be more
> permissive.
(locally) it's been referred to as a "be strict in what you send, relaxed in
what you
Dragon said the following on 2006/08/31 12:24 AM:
> I just tested this on one of my lists. I sent an e-mail with the To: set
> to one of my other e-mail addresses and the CC: set to my list address.
> It worked as advertised when I had it enabled.
I can confirm my own testing duplicates this.
>
Bretton Vine wrote:
>I repeat, no criticism intended, I just need to be able to give a complete
>answer and am anticipating the questions I'll be asked. :-)
I think most of what I'm going to say here has been said by Dragon and
Brad already, but just for emphasis...
The major reason for require
At 8:12 PM +0200 2006-08-30, Bretton Vine wrote:
> Now when I test the following I /don't/ get the error.
>
> TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Which brings to mind an obvious possibility, but this being what it is that
> isn't one that can be entertained. (heads must roll! )
At 11:22 PM +0200 2006-08-30, Bretton Vine wrote:
> (no criticism intended to developers, but I have to ask:)
> Was this requested by users; were users involved in this decision; or was it
> a case of developers deciding for users what they thought was best given the
> environment of email/lis
Bretton Vine sent the message below at 14:22 8/30/2006:
>Dragon said the following on 2006/08/30 10:03 PM:
> > Oops... forgot to send my reply to the list too. Sorry about that
> > Bretton, I did not mean for you to receive it twice.
>
>Not a problem, and thanks for the reply ;-)
>However it doesn'
Dragon said the following on 2006/08/30 10:03 PM:
> Oops... forgot to send my reply to the list too. Sorry about that
> Bretton, I did not mean for you to receive it twice.
Not a problem, and thanks for the reply ;-)
However it doesn't solve my problem of determining why a
TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Oops... forgot to send my reply to the list too. Sorry about that
Bretton, I did not mean for you to receive it twice.
Bretton Vine wrote:
>I understand the reason, but I need a non-technical, max 4 line rationale.
>Failing that I've been instructed to switch it off for /all/ the lists we
>ho
Setup: Debian AMD64 (mix testing/stable), Exim 4.62, Mailman 2.1.8 from
source (with patch to allow @listname in allowed posters), multiple
installations of Mailman (one instance of MM per virtual domain)
In the last 24 hours we've had the same situation occur with two corporate
clie
50 matches
Mail list logo
