On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:11:57 +0200
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone,
[..snip..]
People with hackergotchis
- welp
[..snip..]
That reminds me, I got 10 inches worth of hair chopped off on Monday,
so my hackergotchi needs updating ;)
I'll take another headshot of myself and
Greg KH wrote:
The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
So, what is the problem
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
wrote from scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:16:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
For various reasons, I've got a couple of packages that I'm not really
very well suited to maintain going on. I added them over the course of past
jobs and university courses,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
Well legal,
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
wrote from scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
the Foundation somehow claims
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the case here? Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
tree via bugzilla and other means? Or third-party ebuilds from joe
shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.
On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
no?
How many angels can
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, guys...
*Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
*Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?
There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch ebuilds
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
tree, no?
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no lawyer
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
Mike Doty wrote:
devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
themselves.
Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
themselves.
Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
no. it will probably be devrel who decides if someone was moderating
inappropriately.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
would be the time.
Seems to me that this proposal doesn't solve any problem or address any
issue, and is merely a knee-jerk well we have to do something
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
What's the definition of bad?
--
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
themselves.
Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
See the council meeting logs when they're posted. Having just watched
the meeting live, I saw that the proctors project was just
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:31:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
moderate in
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
--
Ciaran
Mike Doty schrieb:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created
Oh, a couple more questions.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only
devs can post
What about arch testers?
but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
This is bad, for two
This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out
anyway) but that's a path to cross later.
If it will remove the need for -core, why not move some future -dev content
to -core, and make -dev the new list you called -project?
So, if you move discussions where non-devs
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:55:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How will moderation actually work? Whom to ask to moderate a mail?
Just mail a random dev, at best one having to do with the issue or the
discussion, to his [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and ask to forward the post or
how?
Most mailing
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
Most mailing list systems have a built-in provision for moderation. The
devs who haven't been meta-moderated out (to use the Slashdot term)
would have access to it, and could approve or reject messages from
non-devs. I guess.
Wouldnt this allow for the following:
Devs A, B, C are argueing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
^ ^ I agree with that idea ^ ^
-
On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
That looks like a good idea to me if the mandatory
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
anything more.
+1
This move would be shooting Gentoo in the foot, in my
Is this course of tightening all possible restrictions permanent now?
Love,
H
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives
of
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:21:40 +0200
Krzysiek Pawlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would
the archives of -core be opened too?
That's been discussed several times in the past. Agreement has always
been that any change to the public status of
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:43:57 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev
post. devs who
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch since it will require certain components, which we
Hey ;)
As an extension of it. What about this:
_All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
can do that on -project?
Greetz
-Jokey
Greg KH wrote:
So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
the
The -project mailing list ... is a required list for a dev to join.
Sorry, NOT a required list for devs to join.
Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 01:06 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I'd like to nominate Marien Zwarts (marienz) for the Council 2007/2008.
I would second that for sure. I received help form him in #gentoo years
before I ever became a dev. Also roger55 helped me out a few times :)
--
William
Hi there,
This is the first time I've done this, so please bear with me. I am a
half-binary, half-source package associated with net-misc in the tree.
I am a happy, fun-loving package. I totally dig encryption and tunnels.
Most of you know me by net-misc/cisco-vpnclient-3des already. Well, my
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
anything more.
I think the idea
Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post,
Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
against terrorism.
I hate it when the rulers think they can impose such decisions upon the
people and do not
Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Hey ;)
As an extension of it. What about this:
_All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
can do
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:56:24PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
including
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700
Chrissy Fullam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not
moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period
expires and no one booted
Luca Barbato wrote:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't
have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have
anything to say.
Yawn...
Hmm.
And to give that comment a technical side:
- Do you think that any
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:55 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post,
Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
against terrorism.
No, it is nothing like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:10 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is? ...
Am 13.07.2007 um 00:43 schrieb Chrissy Fullam:
The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion.
The
reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open
to be
viewed by the public.
Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently
due to
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
the time.
Any dev can moderate is an illusion. Most non-dev messages are
perfectly reasonable ones and I'm pretty sure the smart devs know how
to handle
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.
I did
not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by
Gentoo
devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in
total.
Rémi Cardona wrote:
People with funky pictures
- dirtyepic
As a rule I don't put pictures of myself on publically accessible
websites. That way no one knows that I'm really Wil Wheaton.
--
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
gentoo org it could suck an
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to
total-snip
One additional note, my proposal doesn't account for controlling
flaming, disrespect or general asshatery (discounting outright
ridiculous things like blatantly insulting people, that's a no-no). That
I am afraid is just one of the natures of communities our size. There is
no way we
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition
the gentoo-project list will be created to take
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
license ebuilds as GPL-2?
The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the license
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2
Kumba wrote:
- I envisioned three mailing lists, essentially:
* core
* dev
* project
- core:private, dev-only mailing list for internal discussion
* Possibility: becomes read-only to the public after
a set time limit, possibly 1,
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
I'm not sure about stuff in -core becoming publicly accessible. After
all, isn't it in the private list for a reason? Perhaps summaries of
-core discussions being forwarded to -dev would be a better option.
However, I'm new to -dev, so if this is what already
Kumba wrote:
Here's where we want the non-devs to get access. After all, not all
development and debugging is done by devs. All the current devs were,
at one point, users. Where did they get their start? My bet is they
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
snip
before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees
list. that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
I as a developer find it very difficult to cut though what I consider
noise to find the bits that I consider important to being able to
continue being an effective developer on a list that I am *required* to
be subscribed to. We have considered the likes of a moderated
Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
copyright to
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
Sorry, I should have made it clear - I was agreeing with you there. I'm
not a -dev yet, but if I continue to have the time to work towards it, I
don't want to be blocked because someone decided that users couldn't
give insights to the developers list.
Ah ha, then
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised this was
Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
somewhat different but
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600:
Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing
list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes.
Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev. One shit at a
On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See
Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12
Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700:
1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion
I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement
for subscription for all devs would
87 matches
Mail list logo
