Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention that the CBLFS book is
using material
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention that the
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention that the
Jim Gifford wrote:
Bruce,
We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to
let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by
BLFS that you would not support multilib and other architectures, we
took care of it with an open project. We have been
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
A little off-topic: I thought it was a little funny that
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:04 CST:
Bruce,
We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to
let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by
BLFS that you would not support multilib and other architectures, we
took care of it
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:04 CST:
Bruce,
We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to
let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by
BLFS that you would not support multilib and other
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
A little off-topic: I
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:48 CST:
Randy, we already do.
Jim, it is not worth haggling over. I simply mentioned this earlier
as a matter of principle. Your attribution does not adhere to the
BLFS license, but so what.
If you don't want to give attribution to the BLFS team in
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Jim,
Randy's the lead now, but I can see some of your point, but not all.
BLFS is a community effort too. I personally don't mind you taking
whatever you think is appropriate and putting it into CBLFS. In fact,
that is allowed by the license.
No it's not. BLFS is a
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:48 CST:
Randy, we already do.
Jim, it is not worth haggling over. I simply mentioned this earlier
as a matter of principle. Your attribution does not adhere to the
BLFS license, but so what.
If you don't want to
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 19:19 CST:
I want to understand what you want here. BLFS is part of LFS, we
represent the LFS license and the BLFS license in our books saying that
we are adapted from that. If you feel you need more representation, show
me what you want. I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/11/07 11:04 CST:
Everything else is just dead and, in the worst case, should be removed
before 6.2.0. I am talking about the Vim page, too.
I'm not sure what Alexander is driving at, but the Vim-7.0 update is
tagged as
13 matches
Mail list logo
