Re: not hardwiring gpg
* Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 04:51:33PM CET: Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't object, but your change would do good with a small explanation to refute Gary's argument for the commit in Automake that added the full name in the first place, 5176801c82cc0ea98b344260b4accf4cab08a0e3, see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/1533/focus=1546. If the hypothetical cracker ever gets in to my (or any developer's) system with sufficient privilege to modify the contents of directories in my PATH (or change my PATH altogether), they can already compromise my development work in so many ways that using such absolute names in gnupload gives reduced functionality with no added security. I thought this was common knowledge, along with the don't hard-code file names dictum, but if you still think it's worth a comment in the code, I'll add one. I know the reasoning and approve of it; my point is that, whenever you explicitly undo an earlier change, then you note that you do it *on purpose*, either in the ChangeLog entry or the git commit entry, so that the next person looking at the history will not have to do guesswork. This applies pretty much regardless of the obviousness of the actual change. So, please commit, and e.g., put the first paragraph of your reply in the log. Thanks, Ralf
Joseph Agiato, LawInfo Introduces Free National Directory to Locate Qualified Personal Injury Lawyers
Joseph Agiato, LawInfo Introduces Free National Directory to Locate Qualified Personal Injury Lawyers PRWEB) September 19, 2007 -- LawInfo has launched a new online directory in which to locate qualified personal injury lawyers (http://www.lawinfo.com/attorney/Personal-Injury) nationwide. These attorneys are a part of LawInfo's signature service, the Lead Counsel Program, which is designed to provide a simple and reliable way for anyone on the Web to find a pre-qualified, pre-screened attorney quickly and easily. The Lead Counsel Program has resulted in the enhanced screening of attorneys' credentials and has become a symbol of quality assurance for consumers searching for legal representation. Personal injury is any physical or mental injury suffered by an individual that is the result of another party's negligence or wrongful act, and can include car accidents, medical malpractice (http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/28) and nursing home abuse. There are so many things to consider when determining how much a personal injury claim is worth, and it can be tough to set a dollar amount on injuries you suffer in an accident. You may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, time lost from work, medical costs for ongoing injuries and pain and suffering. LawInfo's new attorney directory can help anyone nationwide locate a qualified personal injury attorney (http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/32) who will provide a strong legal voice for those who have been wrongly harmed and are entitled to compensation. In addition to hosting a free national attorney directory (http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Search.results), LawInfo.com has also designed a legal resource center that provides a quick and easy way to access free legal forms and documents, research thousands of legal FAQ's, obtain document preparation services and locate legal experts throughout the nation--such as private investigators, bail bondsmen, process servers and paralegals. LawInfo.com also provides an SEO Package for attorneys and legal professionals crafted by a team of SEO specialists that integrates web design, content development and internet marketing with focused traffic-generation tactics. For over a decade, LawInfo's mission has been to assist the public in locating qualified attorneys and legal services. Founded in 1994, LawInfo is recognized nationwide as a leader within the legal community. In addition to listing a national directory in which to locate skilled personal injury lawyers, LawInfo.com also provides access to the latest legal news, breaking reports on FDA-mandated recalls for defective drugs and dangerous products and supplies an index of experienced local and national attorneys who are handling such cases. Staffed by a dedicated team, LawInfo's corporate offices are located in San Marcos, California, just thirty minutes north of San Diego. For more information about Lead Counsel personal injury lawyers, or LawInfo's free legal resource center, call 1-800-397-3743 or visit . - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[SCM] GNU Automake branch, master, updated. Release-1-10-92-g6130d10
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project GNU Automake. http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=automake.git;a=commitdiff;h=6130d102ef0c70a60c231bceefc5a40a8908ade0 The branch, master has been updated via 6130d102ef0c70a60c231bceefc5a40a8908ade0 (commit) from 0ceb06bf5497507cd772b3018a92c106deecf808 (commit) Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those revisions in full, below. - Log - commit 6130d102ef0c70a60c231bceefc5a40a8908ade0 Author: Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue Dec 18 17:49:49 2007 +0100 * lib/gnupload (GPG): Don't use an absolute path. This reverts part of the 2004-01-28 change. If the hypothetical cracker ever gets in to my (or any developer's) system with sufficient privilege to modify the contents of directories in my PATH (or change my PATH altogether), they can already compromise my development work in so many ways that using such absolute names in gnupload gives reduced functionality with no added security. --- Summary of changes: ChangeLog|5 + lib/gnupload |4 ++-- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index 191b99d..b967dcc 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2007-12-18 Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + * lib/gnupload (GPG): Don't use an absolute path. + This reverts part of the 2004-01-28 change. + 2007-12-08 Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] * lib/Automake/FileUtils.pm (open_quote): New function. diff --git a/lib/gnupload b/lib/gnupload index c3a6a42..2e3c801 100755 --- a/lib/gnupload +++ b/lib/gnupload @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ #!/bin/sh # Sign files and upload them. -scriptversion=2007-06-30.12 +scriptversion=2007-12-18.17 # Copyright (C) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation # @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ scriptversion=2007-06-30.12 set -e -GPG='/usr/bin/gpg --batch --no-tty' +GPG='gpg --batch --no-tty' to= usage=Usage: $0 [OPTIONS]... FILES... hooks/post-receive -- GNU Automake
Re: Automake (alpha) release request
On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it be feasible simply to release automake under the GPLv3 *without* those troublesome exceptions? Doing so would not burden other free software projects which are already GPLv3 themselves. Just which projects are clamouring for a new automake release - and under what licence do they wish to distribute their makefiles + aclocal.m4?
Re: Automake (alpha) release request
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it be feasible simply to release automake under the GPLv3 *without* those troublesome exceptions? Doing so would not burden other free software projects which are already GPLv3 themselves. This wouldn't be doing any favors for non-FSF projects that use Autoconf and Automake, particularly given that such huge changes in licensing are rather not what anyone would expect without a major version change. Indeed, the configure and Makefile.in files generated by such an Autoconf and Automake release may actually be illegal to distribute for many non-FSF projects. I can think of several of mine just off the top of my head that would have that problem, due to m4 macros or other content that is covered by a GPL-incompatible license (usually for historical reasons that are nigh-impossible to change due to the impossibility of contacting all past contributors). I like that GNU projects don't assume that everything in the world is a GNU project, and that's particularly important for the fundamental build projects such as GCC, Autoconf, Automake, Libtool, and so forth. Among other things, it's a very important source of good-will and support for the FSF among people who aren't so enamoured of the FSF project as to be willing to make everything a GPL-covered GNU project but who are quite willing to share code, bug reports, and general software infrastructure. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Automake (alpha) release request
Bernd wrote: On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it be feasible simply to release automake under the GPLv3 *without* those troublesome exceptions? Doing so would not burden other free software projects which are already GPLv3 themselves. Except there will be a version of automake out there that has significantly different licensing requirements from other versions of automake. Just which projects are clamouring for a new automake release - and under what licence do they wish to distribute their makefiles + aclocal.m4? I'm not clamoring for a new automake release. I also generally release code under a BSD license that has (so far) been usable by folks who themselves prefer GPL. And having a version of automake out there that does not have the license exceptions will give me a major chill. So far this project has done a real good job of being both useful and usable, and generally staying out of the licensing wars. I most strenuously hope we continue to stay out of the licensing wars, as the alternative is, at least for me, most unpleasant, and will create significant hardships for *many* people. H
Re: Automake (alpha) release request
* Bernd Jendrissek wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:40:44AM CET: If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it be feasible simply to release automake under the GPLv3 *without* those troublesome exceptions? Doing so would not burden other free software projects which are already GPLv3 themselves. For me, that option is a no-go. Either we wait, or release using GPLv2+ with exceptions. Your suggestion also carries additional cost for the autotools maintainers, namely redoing and checking license statements, which I for one refuse to pay. Add to that lost of trust from users, which is more difficult to measure but would certainly be a bitter payment. Cheers, Ralf
Joseph Agiato, Intellectual Property Law
Joseph Agiato, Intellectual Property Law Intellectual Property Law can be quite confusing at times. Copyrights, trademarks and patents all have a role in protecting your hard earned content and knowing their role is half the battle.Intellectual property in itself refers to the creations of the mind, including such things as: artistic works, literary works, inventions, names, images, symbols, and designs used in commerce. In other words, the intellect that is the possession of an organization or an individual is considered intellectual property. Intellectual property is divided into two categories, copyrights and industrial property. Copyrights give the authors of an exclusive work, exclusive rights to that work for a limited amount of time. Copyrights cover such literary and artistic works as novels, poems, plays, films, songs and other musical works, artistic works (drawings, paintings, sculptures and photographs) and architectural designs. Copyrights, which must be renewed periodically, allow the creators of a piece of work, the opportunity to benefit from that piece of work. Industrial property includes patents, trademarks, industrial designs and geographic indications of source. Patents give the inventors of a new product, a certain (limited) amount of time in which he/she may prevent others from making, selling or using the invention without authorization. A trademark is an intellectual property protection which is used to protect the distinctive features that distinguish one product from another. Those features can include such things as: symbols, colors, brands, names, sounds, smells, shapes, and signs. Fortunately, Intellectual property laws benefit the creator of a property, by rewarding that creator for his/her innovation and creativity. Also, society as a whole benefits from intellectual property laws, by the fact, that these laws encourage creativity, therefore allowing the rest of us to benefit from the wide range of products and services that are produced. Any violation of a trademark, patent or copyright could constitute the grounds for an intellectual property lawsuit. If you feel that you have been victimized it would be wise to consult a qualified attorney in your area. Find an attorney or law firm, which specializes in intellectual property law. Know your rights and protect them accordingly. You are welcome to reproduce this article: as long as a live link to is provided. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Re: Automake (alpha) release request
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: This wouldn't be doing any favors for non-FSF projects that use Autoconf and Automake, particularly given that such huge changes in licensing are rather not what anyone would expect without a major version change. Right. Indeed, the configure and Makefile.in files generated by such an Autoconf and Automake release may actually be illegal to distribute for many non-FSF projects. I can think of several of mine just off the top of my head that would have that problem, due to m4 macros or other content that is covered by a GPL-incompatible license (usually for historical reasons that are nigh-impossible to change due to the impossibility of contacting all past contributors). There is also the little issue of the generated configure.h, which contains text copied verbatim from autoconf, automake, and libtool. It becomes part of the C source code for an application. Without the license exceptions, there are probably 1000 open source projects which would be dead in the water since they do not use the GPL v3 license. Even projects which are GPL but have chosen to stick with GPL v2 could be at risk. The significance of this issue to the open source community should not be under-stated. There is no reason to believe that the FSF will change its mind about non-GPLed projects using autotools but the final proof will be in the license exception text which is generated. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Re: not hardwiring gpg
Hello Jim, Karl, * Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:36:27PM CET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote: Will you accept this change from Jim Meyering to gnupload? (Until now we have copied the gnulib gnupload from automake.) Thanks for forwarding that, Karl. I didn't know gnulib's gnupload file came from elsewhere. FYI, rationale + ChangeLog entry are here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs/12211 If no one objects, I'll push this in automake, too. I don't object, but your change would do good with a small explanation to refute Gary's argument for the commit in Automake that added the full name in the first place, 5176801c82cc0ea98b344260b4accf4cab08a0e3, see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/1533/focus=1546. Cheers, Ralf --- automake/lib/gnupload 2007-07-08 01:09:48.0 -0700 +++ gnulib/build-aux/gnupload 2007-12-15 06:41:32.0 -0800 @@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ set -e -GPG='/usr/bin/gpg --batch --no-tty' +GPG='gpg --batch --no-tty'
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS problems
I have run into a problem where the following line:
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4
in the top level Makefile.am causes make dist to fail. Eg:
Ruben-Henner-Zilibowitzs-iMac:hello rhz$ make dist
{ test ! -d hello-0.1 || { find hello-0.1 -type d ! -perm -200 -exec
chmod u+w {} ';' rm -fr hello-0.1; }; }
test -d hello-0.1 || mkdir hello-0.1
/bin/sh: hello-0.1/Bunga: No such file or directory
cp: hello-0.1/m4/am_prog_mkdir_p.m4: No such file or directory
make: *** [distdir] Error 1
Removing ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4 solves the problem, but I have
another project which needs this for autoconf to work correctly, so I
can't remove it, so make dist always fails there. If anyone can help
explain what might be going wrong exactly here, I'd really appreciate
it.
Maybe this should be posted to the autoconf mailing list, if there is
one. I'm not sure about that.
Regards,
Ruben Henner Zilibowitz
Re: not hardwiring gpg
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... So, please commit, and e.g., put the first paragraph of your reply in the log. Ah. That makes sense. Done.
