On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote:
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in
On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote:
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code
should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
On 2007/08/31 21:38, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
fe80::a00:20ff:fef9:a88d ff02::12: ip-proto-112 36 (len 36, hlim 255)
this happens when you reconfigure IP addresses; workaround: ifconfig
carpXX destroy; sh /etc/netstart carpXX. the fix is in rev 1.132.2.1 of
Just a side remark...
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
The only remaining nit I have with my thinkpad is the still-flaky wpi
firmware which is needed for the 3945ABG to work. It keeps nodding
off at random intervals, longer intervals now than earlier, but still.
this must be indeed a problem of
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages to you from the net4offers mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.
If this
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
[..]
The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
And the license request you to preserve the license, thus if you do not
preserve the license you are not complying with it.
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
Dear gentleman,
i have setted my NIS server using openbsd 4.1. In order to get things
easier to manage, i decide the have a directory a part for my input
file for nis database building process.
So, i change the /var/yp/`domainname`/Makefile variables the point to
the amd directory and etc
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree..
You're entitled to say stupid things.
The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
The license is a part of the copyrighted work.
It grants
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I recently installed OpenBSD 4.1 on my computer and tried to connect
to my xDSL ISP via pppoe.
The contents of my /etc/hostname.fxp0 are: dhcp
The contents of /etc/ppp/ppp.conf are:
default:
set log Phase Chat LCP IPCP CCP tun
Wrong wrong wrong.
You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is.
You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience.
I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now doesn't
make it so. Try it and see what happens.
Let me try once more to
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Amit Finkler wrote:
The contents of my /etc/hostname.fxp0 are: dhcp
This should be just up.
1. How do I disable IPv6?
You don't need to, I'm sure that's not the problem.
Btw, I suggest you to try the kernel mode pppoe.
It's really simple to set up and works like
a
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
cannot simply do whatever you
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code
should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
should, or must?
must.
Another argument has popped up elsewhere (by some poster, on
kerneltrap.org), pointing out that the GPL itself may also require
dual-licensed software to
On 2007/09/01 16:34, Amit Finkler wrote:
The error message I get involves something about IPv6 format
something about IPv6 format? you can do better than that.
copy-and-paste.
2007/9/1, Amit Finkler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. How do I disable IPv6?
disable ipv6cp
ppp(8) tells you more.
Best
Martin
PS: Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/08/31 21:38, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
fe80::a00:20ff:fef9:a88d ff02::12: ip-proto-112 36 (len 36, hlim 255)
this happens when you reconfigure IP addresses; workaround: ifconfig
carpXX destroy; sh /etc/netstart carpXX. the fix is in rev 1.132.2.1 of
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while.
And it is going to work soon.
Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor
anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space
non-executable, nor anything like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/09/01 16:34, Amit Finkler wrote:
The error message I get involves something about IPv6 format
something about IPv6 format? you can do better than that.
copy-and-paste.
Antti Harri wrote:
On Sat,
On 2007/09/01 18:09, Amit Finkler wrote:
pppoe0: flags=8810POINTOPOINT,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1492
I don't know why, but this interface is not up.
Greetings,
Need advise how to setup one DNS server for multiple domain
names, like: abcd._com_.xy, abcd._net_.xy, abcd._org_.xy, and
abcd._biz_.xy
The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first domain)
but, how to name the server in the SOA record for the rest
of the domains?
Regards,
Dear gentleman,
i am trying to get nis to build their maps from files located in
another directory than /etc.
So, my Makefile (inside /var/yp/`domainname`) has the following lines :
YPDBDIR=/var/yp
DIR=/asd/etc
AMDDIR=/asd/etc/amd
NOPUSH=
UNSECURE=
USEDNS=-b
So my ideia is to grab as input,
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
*
Do you have any understanding of YP?
You tell us that it builds ok. Is that all debugging you have done?
Have you verified that you get the correct entry for sioux from
master.passwd? ypmatch from root can be used to test that...
ypcat and ypwhich is other tools you can use to debug...
makedbm
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU
GPL v2, it is correct to change the
* Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070901 10:45]:
Well, it looks like the Linux wireless people have decided that their
relatively small modifications to the Atheros driver will be GPL'd,
and not given back to improve the driver in the *BSD world.
If code is released under copyright. be it
The hypocrisy of the FFBBII is quite astounding, that they can get away with
poisoning my dog... Taking ones frustration out on a dog, is more insidious
than the other guys that poison people, considering that a dog is purely
innocent and defenseless.
It is time that the FFBBII start applying
On 9/1/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If code is released under copyright. be it BSD, or GPL, and someone
other than the author(s) changes the license, can the person(s)
who(m) made the changes seriously expect that somebody else cannot
take that code under the terms of the original
On 9/1/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the
First, I wish to appologize.
While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL,
I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or
the ISC.
Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before
my original
post I missed the clause that appears to be
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Siju George wrote:
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ which strings
/usr/bin/strings
See strings(1) :-)
--
Antti Harri
On 8/31/07, Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'remote_command remote_logfile'
Note the single ticks, without them redirection is done by the local shell.
--Heinrich
Thank you so much Antti and Heinrich and to all who replied off list :-)
Kind Regards
'strings' is a common Unix utility used
to find actual words or series of letters grouped together
in a file. You can run strings in binary executable
files to see any text embedded in the executable.
This can sometimes be used to find versions of
some executables as well as for other reasons
On 9/1/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
strings(1) -
Siju George wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
man strings
:-)
/Alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/1/07 12:29 PM, Siju George wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:39AM +0530, Siju George wrote:
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
The usual explanation is man strings. But for example:
*--*
artemis:~
{20} % strings
In this country (US) we have something called the first amendment. It is a
guarantee that individual American citizens will not be punished when
disclosing abuses by the government.
Is what I am disclosing so unbelievable, especially considering far more series
past abuses.
You are either a
On 01/09/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
tvc: {2476}
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
except remove the copyright.
ISC has no say in the matter of interpreting the legal document.
Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights
they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public.
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[responding to Dmitrij Czarkoff:]
So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the
licensing
deal on terms of either first or second or both
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/07 9:15 PM, mufurcz wrote:
Greetings,
Need advise how to setup one DNS server for multiple domain
names, like: abcd._com_.xy, abcd._net_.xy, abcd._org_.xy, and
abcd._biz_.xy
The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
That is entirely false.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
except remove the copyright.
... but I do not see anything in the license that
requires preserving the license.
Let's go for a detailed report:
My files are:
lion# cat /asd/etc/master.passwd
sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh
mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false
Gents,
the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his
code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here.
Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way
as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT
convert GPL'd code to proprietary code.
BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because
you can convert the code to proprietary code.
You could
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
So if they chose to distribute those 3 files
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
So if they chose to distribute those 3 files
[ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
recent license modifications to reyk's files]
Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
/* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under
On 01/09/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
get
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
Noun
alternative (plural alternatives)
1. A situation which allows a choice
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
get
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
Noun
alternative (plural alternatives)
1. A situation which allows a choice between two
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice
2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you
would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as
far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and
NetBSD, IIRC.
This has to agreed by all
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question.
Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted
ones?
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
I am not
On 01/09/07, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you
would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as
far I as understand. This is how it's often
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
The copyright notice
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
to OpenBSD, given
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:34:00PM -0700, David Newman wrote:
The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first domain)
but, how to name the server in the SOA record for the rest
of the domains?
1. Add more zones for your new domains in your named.conf file.
Here's a bind 9 example:
Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the
sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words without
modification?
As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago ..
adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then)
adding GPL and
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
it, such that there will be
On 8/31/07, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31/08/2007, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be a retarted question, but can a Intel quad core run amd64
just as i386 doesn't run on 80386, amd64 does run on Intel Core 2 processors
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a
If you're looking for an apartment in the city of Tulsa, good luck. Occupancy
levels are at an all-time high. So, prices are heading up as well. And, the
situation is growing.
To read more of this incredible News Channel 8 segment visit
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0807/451742.html
On Saturday 01 September 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Well, it looks like the Linux wireless people have decided that their
relatively small modifications to the Atheros driver will be GPL'd,
and not given back to improve the driver in the *BSD world.
71 matches
Mail list logo
