On 01/14/18 at 08:34pm, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:46:01 -0400,
> Andrew Gregory via arch-projects wrote:
> >
> > On 07/09/17 at 11:21am, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > > Looking at the issue on the bugtracker, I'm not sure what you want to
> > > achieve? personally I don't see
On 01/15/18 at 12:56am, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects wrote:
> On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in
> > FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed. :P
> >
> > If that's the official position that the archweb team
On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in
> FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed. :P
>
> If that's the official position that the archweb team wants to take, I
> won't argue.
I dunno what jelle/angvp/the gang
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:51:07 -0500,
Eli Schwartz wrote:
>
> On 01/14/2018 08:34 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > Note that without even being concerned with license compatibility,
> > archweb is currently in violation of konami.js, as it does not
> > include, link to, or in any way provide
On 01/14/2018 08:34 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> Note that without even being concerned with license compatibility,
> archweb is currently in violation of konami.js, as it does not
> include, link to, or in any way provide instructions on how to obtain
> non-minified source code.
This would be
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:04:01 -0500,
Luke Shumaker wrote:
> - take konami.js from commit
>ec0f686e647765860ff4d2fcb7b48122785432b75
I'm sorry, I made a typo when pasting that. It should be:
c0f686e647765860ff4d2fcb7b48122785432b75
--
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:46:01 -0400,
Andrew Gregory via arch-projects wrote:
>
> On 07/09/17 at 11:21am, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > Looking at the issue on the bugtracker, I'm not sure what you want to
> > achieve? personally I don't see any point in upgrading to GPLv3.
>
> Presumably, the main
On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:34:59 -0500,
Eli Schwartz wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2018 10:55 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > Not really sure what the issue is, are we actually in violation of
> > anything, and if so what? For example, quickly googling for konami.js
> > shows me several github repos that *all*
On 01/07/2018 10:55 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Not really sure what the issue is, are we actually in violation of
> anything, and if so what? For example, quickly googling for konami.js
> shows me several github repos that *all* claim to be MIT licensed.
Morten Linderud pointed out on IRC that it
On 01/07/2018 10:12 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> What's the status of this after our last message here?
>
> I have some questions that you can ask the ArchLinux meetings in order
> help solve this:
>
> 1. For things provided by the ArchLinux project and which have the
>problematic
What's the status of this after our last message here?
I have some questions that you can ask the ArchLinux meetings in order
help solve this:
1. For things provided by the ArchLinux project and which have the
problematic licenses, has ArchLinux agreed license change?
Rephrasing the
On 07/17/17 at 09:00am, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> Indeed. things under GPL 2 (notice the lack of "+"/"or later") can't
> adapt/depend on things under GPL 3.
>
> Things under both GPL 2 and its "+"/"or later" version can't
> adapt/depend on things under Apache 2.0. However,
Indeed. things under GPL 2 (notice the lack of "+"/"or later") can't
adapt/depend on things under GPL 3.
Things under both GPL 2 and its "+"/"or later" version can't
adapt/depend on things under Apache 2.0. However, things under GPL 3 and
its "+"/"or later" version can.
On 07/09/17 at 11:21am, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do some more work on Archweb these days, so I might be able to help.
>
> On 07/08/17 at 06:38pm, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> > For a short description of the issue, see:
> >
Hi,
I do some more work on Archweb these days, so I might be able to help.
On 07/08/17 at 06:38pm, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> For a short description of the issue, see:
> [[https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1405]].
>
> However, we must also note that Archweb is now newer
Sorry, I *am* subscribed, I forgot to edit the message in order to
remove that note. :)
Hi all,
I have an issue to report. However, please note that I'm not subscribed
to this mailing list, so I'd recommend you to Cc me when replying.
For a short description of the issue, see:
[[https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1405]].
However, we must also note that Archweb is now newer than the
17 matches
Mail list logo
