Hello All,
I guess I'm doing some strange things here, and I hope that they are not going
to come back to bite me. :-)
Goal: To have an X Windows Two Monitor, One Video Card system running
Hardware: Macbook Pro 2.16ghz Intel Core Duo w/ ATI Radeon Mobility X1600
So far, the only way I have
Goal: Configure my laptop's sendmail as a client to connect securely to my
remotely configured (sendmail VPS Slackware) mail relay server using port 587.
I am running the latest (as of a few days ago) OpenBSD snapshot on a Macbook
Pro Intel Core Duo 2.16ghz 17. Below you can find a copy of my
Hey all,
I am just wondering if any work is going into the Atheros 5424 chipset? (I
noticed some disturbing news about new code being added to the Atheros code.)
How much work would be involved to get the chipset working?
- Aaron
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
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...
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[..]
I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that
3 of those files have *alternative* licensing.
Yes, indeed you can choose between the two licenses, but you CANNOT
*REMOVE* either of them. Only the Copyright holder who put that
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
Hi.
I'm actually playing with an Epson Stylus 4050 multifunction printer.
The printer parts works as well as the scanner *but* not at the same
time.
I have to disable ulpt using config(8) and reboot if I want to be able
to use the scanner. I don't need/use uscanner as sane-backends (scan
Hi,
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:23:16PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Hi.
I'm actually playing with an Epson Stylus 4050 multifunction printer.
The printer parts works as well as the scanner *but* not at the same time.
I have to disable ulpt using config(8) and reboot if I want to be able to
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:54:38AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
[...]
BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with
no availability of source -
Which is exactly one characteristic of BSD vs. GPL, that BSD doesn't
require you to distribute source should you
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[...]
Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM author decleration is
made.
In some
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jonathan Gray wrote:
It only shows up as one device? It doesn't detach
and reattach with a different USB class when you hit a button
or similiar?
Nope, only one device... very strange. Of course the scanner part and
the printer part both share the same ID.
Basically, if
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:13:07PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
On 9/2/07, Todd T. Fries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false, only if software is distributed.
or
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra 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 Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
*
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and GPL-only modifications) have?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in another message:
Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice
tells you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use
the BSD) under the terms of the GNU GPL v2.
Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you
Salut,
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other
users.
If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors
who
profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back.
thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra spake:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false,
On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to
adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[...]
Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra 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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and GPL-only
Blah blah blah
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 04:42:42PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your
favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to
you again.
As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is
not relevant. In fact everything you have said is not relevant.
On Sun,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a
paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received.
^^^
(1)
Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
^ (all line)
* GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free
^ (all
On 9/2/07, Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne
Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any
copyright law in place. It includes the U.S.
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the help of Jonathon, I think I've made some progress. I changed
/etc/hostname.pppoe0 to be the following:
pppoedev fxp0 authproto pap authname 'MYAUTHNAME' authkey 'MYPASSWORD'
!/sbin/ifconfig fxp0 up
!/sbin/ifconfig \$if inet 0.0.0.0
/Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a XOR eg.
one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the may also part but
Inexistant word in this case, so that reasoning doesn't apply.
that, so whatever, not
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't
be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html):
And therein lies the problem. Unless a developer went through a
Hey all,
For some reason, I can't seem to figure this out. I have an external umass
hard drive detected as sd0 by my computer. However, immediately on starting,
the drive goes into offline mode. It then will not respond to any commands.
For example:
$ sudo fdisk sd0
fdisk:
I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be
able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows.
What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these
various OS's?
--
I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you
FAT32.
On 9/3/07, stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be
able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows.
What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these
various OS's?
--
I'm
Hi folks.
I'm using a number of USB drives connected to the same server for backup
purposes. And there will be different backup sets from the server that
need to be kept separated. So I really need to be able to plug a disk
into a specific USB cable and know that the correct backup set will be
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind
assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any
interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words...
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby
stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be
able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows.
Once Windows is in the picture, you will need to go with a Microsoft
file system. Most of these drives anyway
Hello,
I am running OpenBSD 4.1 stable.
I installed a Cyclades Ze PCI card, and hooked it up to the external 1U box.
When my machine boots, I see:
Cyclades Cyclom-Z rev 0x01 at pci1 dev 9 function 0 not configured
So the OS/driver does see the card.
How do I get from where I am to
When my machine boots, I see:
Cyclades Cyclom-Z rev 0x01 at pci1 dev 9 function 0 not configured
So the OS/driver does see the card.
You have that backwards. The OS does see the card, thus the message.
The not configured part means the OS is not configured with a driver
that
Don Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am running OpenBSD 4.1 stable.
I installed a Cyclades Ze PCI card, and hooked it up to the external 1U box.
When my machine boots, I see:
Cyclades Cyclom-Z rev 0x01 at pci1 dev 9 function 0 not configured
So the OS/driver does see
44 matches
Mail list logo
