On Tuesday 16 December 2003 09:05 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was bothering me, in part were two issues.
You have talked this to death. Please stop.
If you have further doubts about Mitel's compliance with the GPL I suggest you
hire yourself a lawyer and have him/her talk to Mitel's
Your how-to states that 'This work' is being released under the
following license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
Is this a valid license? for almost everything is GPL, except for the
how-to itself.
Apparently the cc license is ment for creative (=art) work, whereas the
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:34:48PM +1000, Peter Lambert wrote:
Charlie,
Are the sources Mitel are releasing sufficient to build the unsupported
developer release 6.0 ISO when compiled with other open, readily available
sources ?.
If there are Mitel proprietary sources involved, are these
What I find anoying is that I must either do a reply-to and change the to
address or do a reply-to-all and delete the personal adress... Also I
beleive there must be a lot of reply lost because people only do reply and
the information only goes to the sender and not the list...
I'll look at the
On 17/12/03 Les Mikesell did say:
Actually the GPL applies to any derived work that is subsequently
distributed regardless of whether you modify the original or not.
Many people have far too loose an interpretation of that. Any code ever
written in GNU Emacs, a GPL'd product, is not a derived
Bruce,
Thanks for this message:
What is this persistent rumour about proprietary licenses? The Mitel
and E-smith sites both make it quite clear that the Developer release is
GPL and that any proprietary stuff is in the supported, commercial
release. Has anybody ever produced any evidence
Unfortunatly right now I'm getting my maind at work in a corporate
environment that uses a MS-Exchange server... And I can not have external
pop/smtp/web mail access. BTW same thing with IRC which is strictly blocked
at the firewall level (no they are not using an SME :-(( )
-Original
On 18 Dec 2003 at 1:27, Rasjid Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 18 December 2003 01:08, Courchesne, Andre wrote:
What I find anoying is that I must either do a reply-to and change
the to address or do a reply-to-all and delete the personal
adress... Also I beleive there must be
Ok, long enough thread for something that has nothing to do with
development...
I'll work the way my mail software wants to work and stop complaining about
it.
ANdre
-Original Message-
From: Nick Ramsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:44 AM
To: [EMAIL
Just fyi, if you hit reply-all on the posts at lists.contribs.org, you will
NOT receive duplicates. The Mailman software is smart enough to cut out the
dupes.
-jeff
-Original Message-
From: Courchesne, Andre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:00 AM
To:
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 10:13, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Courchesne, Andre wrote:
...
That's a matter of education. It's not a bad idea for every email sender
to be aware of who they are sending messages to.
I couldn't agree more Charlie, every mailing list is handled
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jeff Coleman wrote:
Just fyi, if you hit reply-all on the posts at lists.contribs.org, you will
NOT receive duplicates. The Mailman software is smart enough to cut out the
dupes.
That's not possible Jeff. Mailman won't even see replies sent directly to
the original
Thanks. I thought I was going nuts : (maybe I am)
-jeff
I stand corrected. Mailman can parse Cc: and To: headers, and
can choose not to send messages to those recipients. That
means that Mailman doesn't guarantee that everyone on its
list is sent a copy of the message, but it does
Hi,
First, I know 5.5 is outdated and maybe noone will want to answer
questions on it. But I'm shooting anyway...
By looking at the directories of SRPMS and RPMS, I found the following
discrepancy:
SRPMS: e-smith-release-5.5beta9-01
RPMS: e-smith-release-5.5-03
Sounds good for me. I had not read the release notes inside the source rpm
yet (shame on me). But shoudn't the source package name change automatically
when doing the rpm -bs or rpm -ba ?
-Original Message-
From: Rich Lafferty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003
15 matches
Mail list logo
