I want to avoid a potentially harmful misunderstanding in this thread.
The messages I've posted to this mailing list represent solely my own
opinions and don't necessarily reflect those of the GNU project.
The GNU project is not liable for any of my posts, being myself the
sole responsible for th
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:14:01 -0200, Bruno =?UTF-8?B?RsOpbGl4?= Rezende Ribeiro
wrote:
> > Another strange thing is that your only technical proposition was to
> > replace the imake build systems with GNU Autotools, a proposition that
> > was already made 1 year ago, but not accepted.
>
> That isn
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:53:01 +0100
Edmond Orignac escreveu:
> >> Here we have a problem. In the GNU project we are mainly concerned
> >> with user's freedom.
>
> As opposed to programmer's freedom.
"Freedom" to subjugate other people is not freedom, it's power[1].
> You seem to have appointe
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Brent Busby wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Pouar wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
>>> Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
>>> left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
>>> projects that embrace,
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Edmond Orignac wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson escreveu:
Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
being forced into a specific license
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson escreveu:
I have no objection to supporting autotool builds for CDE (but we need
to not break or remove Imake support either).
Nice to hear it. Naturally, for the GNU build system,
On 11/22/2014 09:46 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:34:36PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
>> Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
>> David Mackay escreveu:
>>
If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
Just ignore the violations. Bei
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:34:36PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
> David Mackay escreveu:
>
> > >If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
> > >Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can
> > >enfor
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Pouar wrote:
> On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
>> Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
>> left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
>> projects that embrace, extend, and extinguish open ones...but does
>>
On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
> Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
> left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
> projects that embrace, extend, and extinguish open ones...but does
> anyone who still wants to run CDE in 2
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Rob Tomsick wrote:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
>> I believed the GNOME project (contrarily to KDE) fitted perfectly the
>> aims of the GNU organization by being based on the non-proprietary
>> toolkit GTK. Moreover, in order to improve
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:53:40 -0500
Rob Tomsick escreveu:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 07:34:36 PM Bruno Félix Rezende
> Ribeiro wrote:
> > That may be true for non-trivial licenses like GPLv3, but that's
> > hardly the case for very permissive licenses (like X11's), as they
> > are almost vir
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Lennert Van Alboom wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:17:34PM +, David Mackay wrote:
> > On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear
> > from autotools as possible. CDE's build system is somewhat antiquated,
> > and a rehaul would be a prudent idea
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 07:34:36 PM Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> That may be true for non-trivial licenses like GPLv3, but that's
> hardly the case for very permissive licenses (like X11's), as they are
> almost virtually identical to the public domain.
Please don't muddy the waters
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
David Mackay escreveu:
> >If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
> >Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can
> >enforce the license.
>
> >So don't prosecute them --- it's virtually the same, and that's all
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:17:34PM +, David Mackay wrote:
> On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear
> from autotools as possible. CDE's build system is somewhat antiquated,
> and a rehaul would be a prudent idea, but autotools is not
> appropriate. In this day and ag
I've been with the CDE project pretty much from the start. 75% of the wiki is
my work and despite my absence on IRC (new job, less time for the Internet) I
still use CDE everyday.
I don't really understand why it's so important to fork CDE. If you have deep
philosophical differences with the p
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> >> Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
> >>
> >> Jon Trulson escreveu:
> >>> Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoi
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
>> Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
>> Jon Trulson escreveu:
>>> Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
>>> being forced into a specific license if at all possible - this is why
>It's perfectly legal to just ignore your request.
This is your right, but it's also incredibly impolite and abrasive. It
will not facilitate good relationship with those who are actually
/contributing/ to CDE.
>If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
>Just ignore the vi
Em Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:46:42 -0800
Isaac Dunham escrow:
> At least one minor contribution (the script desktop2dt, which converts
> some *.desktop files to the type of file CDE expects) is under a
> permissive "MIT" license:
>
> # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> obta
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
> Jon Trulson escreveu:
> > Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
> > being forced into a specific license if at all possible - this is why
> > w
Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Jon Trulson escreveu:
> I have no objection to supporting autotool builds for CDE (but we need
> to not break or remove Imake support either).
Nice to hear it. Naturally, for the GNU build system, I'm thinking in
an approach different of that taken by th
Hmm…if you have a writeup of what you did to build Motif and then CDE, I can
certainly take a shot at replicating it on my T5240, although it may be next
week before I can get much done; didn’t realize the scarcity of modern SPARC in
hands free to use it as they wished. :-) (I’ve way too many
On 20/11/2014 13:53, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> You’re quite right, I didn’t have that package installed. It quite surprises
> me that a full desktop install didn’t include even the motif lib and headers
> anymore. :-/
>
> Do we know whether a build of CDE should work with the vendor Motif li
You’re quite right, I didn’t have that package installed. It quite surprises
me that a full desktop install didn’t include even the motif lib and headers
anymore. :-/
Do we know whether a build of CDE should work with the vendor Motif libs?
And are either of those packages available for SPARC?
I have an IPS openmotif package available that installs to
"/opt/SMM/openmotif" and a IPS package of the current CDE snapshot that
uses that installed version of openmotif.
Did you have the Oracle version of "pkg:/library/motif" installed?
There are a lot of files in that package that conflict
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Jon Trulson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[…]
>> My immediate interest is getting CDE on OS X and Solaris 11. AFAIK,
>> both of those either have automake/autoconf from the vendor, or
>> have it in a reasonably well-supported packaging of
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Copyleft vs permissive license arguments get in the way of making good
technical decisions IMO - except when the distinction is needed for
NON-ideological arguments.
+1
Backwards compatibility has a couple of points to commend it:
* not alie
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Steven Edwards wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro <
oitofe...@gnu.org> wrote:
I sent a message a few days ago to this very mailing list
expressing my desire of migrating CDE's build system to GNU
Autotools[0]. Unfortunately, CDE
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
Hello Steven!
Em Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:54:43 -0800
Steven Edwards escreveu:
I couldn't find any information on if anyone else is working on
either of these but I've started hacking on it in my local tree and
am making pretty good progress
Copyleft vs permissive license arguments get in the way of making good
technical decisions IMO - except when the distinction is needed for
NON-ideological arguments.
Backwards compatibility has a couple of points to commend it:
* not alienating existing base in the hopes of pursuing a new base
*
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro <
oitofe...@gnu.org> wrote:
> I sent a message a few days ago to this very mailing list
> expressing my desire of migrating CDE's build system to GNU
> Autotools[0]. Unfortunately, CDE developers don't seem very receptive
> t
Hello Steven!
Em Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:54:43 -0800
Steven Edwards escreveu:
> I couldn't find any information on if anyone else is working on
> either of these but I've started hacking on it in my local tree and
> am making pretty good progress.
I sent a message a few days ago to this very mailin
34 matches
Mail list logo
