zooko == zooko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
zooko P.S. A revision control tool is something which works only
zooko by interacting intimately with one or more skilled humans.
And a development process. One of the things that the arch community
spent a lot of time on (at least up until I
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:09:38AM -0700, Mike Gunter wrote:
Darcs is deciding that a couple of my text files should be treated as
binaries. It is working as designed here -- both files do indeed
contain the '\0' has_funky_char looks for. I don't see how the code
I'm looking at (from
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:09:32PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear David Roundy and all other darcs copyright holders:
Please act now, before the situation gets more complicated or staler.
Please publically state that you allow GPL'ed darcs source code to be
mixed with IBM Common
On Friday 3 June 2005 15:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Do nothing, therefore continuing to distribute darcs under GPL v2 or
(at your option) any later version. The possible drawback to this is
that someday someone might come up with a good idea for darcs which
involves CPL'ed code, and the
Max Battcher wrote:
I don't see what the problem is then. You can have the CPL plugin and
GPL Darcs in the same zip file. You don't need to relicense anything to
do that.
I agree with Max and with Thomas Zander that the Eclipse darcs plugin
example is hardly a motivating example. The
Just to be clear: I am not advocating adopting an LGPL-like or a BSD-like
(permissive) license in place of darcs's current GPL licence. I think there
may be some confusion about this because some other people were advocating such
things in the same thread in which I suggested this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose that someone wished to create a program using darcs and also using code
under the CPL or EPL licences. Suppose that this program were released under a
Free Software license, and suppose that the components of the program which
were derived from darcs were under
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose that someday a Free Software hacker writes a beautiful darcs GUI using
the SWT graphics toolkit. Suppose that by the time this happens, and the
darcs authors become aware of it, that it is too late to secure relicensing
permissions for the necessary darcs code
Kannan Goundan wrote:
Isn't the CPL also a copyleft license? Wouldn't it be possible for the GPLv3 to
remain copyleft but also be compatible with the CPL?
OMIF, sorry. Apparently the incompatibility is on the issue of patent
encumbrance, which in this case makes the GPL more free.
--
On 2005-06-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney wrote:
Wouldn't this also keep darcs from incorporating GPLed code that
didn't have this exception? Because we can't grant rights for others
to mix such code (or derived works) with CPL code.
It would not prevent
You obviously never talked to RMS :-)
;-)
Indeed. I did not seriously intend to suggest that darcs developers should
drop the or any later version clause.
For what it is worth, I have talked to RMS. I enjoyed the conversation. Among
my small victories in life, I persuaded RMS and Guido van
Colin McMillen wrote:
This is why I never use the or any later version clause in any
software I release. Sure, it may seem a bit paranoid, but I don't see
any substantial reason why the clause is there in the first place. If
the FSF comes up with a new, improved version X of the GPL that
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:43:46PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin McMillen wrote:
This is why I never use the or any later version clause in any
software I release. Sure, it may seem a bit paranoid, but I don't see
any substantial reason why the clause is there in the first
* Kannan Goundan:
Aside: Has anyone wondered what would happen if someone (say, MS) gradually
infiltrated the FSF and created a permissive GPLv4?
Yes, but everybody would simply license further improvements under
GPLv2 only, so this isn't a huge deal, really.
Some clauses in the copyright
On 2005-06-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+-+
| disallowed |
|+-+ +---+ +---+|
|| Eclipse | | darcs | | Linux ||
|| CPL | | ? | | GPL ||
|+-+ +---+ +---+|
--- David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I think your question is where darcs will be going once the conflictor code
is complete and well-tested? The long-time TODO list includes addition of
new patch types that will reduce the danger of conflicts in certain
situations (e.g. paragraphs
--- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Kannan Goundan:
Aside: Has anyone wondered what would happen if someone (say, MS)
gradually infiltrated the FSF and created a permissive GPLv4?
Yes, but everybody would simply license further improvements under
GPLv2 only, so this isn't a
17 matches
Mail list logo
