On Wed 17 Oct, Philip Blundell wrote:
For RISCOS stuff we can manage a few useful things in the 'no more than a
couple of hundred quid, or swap for some hardware' range, but as it doesn't
really bring in any significant money we can't justify any more at the
moment. If we get some more
For RISCOS stuff we can manage a few useful things in the 'no more than a
couple of hundred quid, or swap for some hardware' range, but as it doesn't
really bring in any significant money we can't justify any more at the
moment. If we get some more lucrative bespoke work then I'd certainly like
to
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
The current license in full is:
Terminology
---
1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The `source code' refers to the machine-readable
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
The current license in full is:
Terminology
---
1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
contactable at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. The `source
What do the NetBSD folks use to boot up on the RiscPC?
Can it be made to start the linux kernel?
And is it DFSG free?
They have their own bootloader, !BtRiscBSD or something. I've no idea what
the answer is to the other two questions, offhand, but I suspect that fixing
LinLoader so that it
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:11:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justification for
particular versions of this clause under fields of endeavor but all
the justifications I saw rested on some non-generic aspect of the
clause currently under
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul If the should send sources to author thing is a
Raul requirement -- if people must send sources to author under
Raul some circumstances, it's a DFSG problem.
I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justification for
Scripsit Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Modifications should come back to me. This is to prevent the current
situation where people have long outstanding patches against the Linux
kernel sitting around that we, as a community, never see. If anything,
this is a requirement I
The author thinks it is sufficiently free and doesn't want to change it (see
previous mail). So can we include this or not? Any good arguments for
persuading the author that in fact the licence isn't free? part of this
software is needed by boot-floppies - just putting the software in non-free
1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author for inclusion
in a later release of the tools.
No problem, since it's should, not must.
I'm not convinced that this distinction is really meaningful.
This translates to you mustn't modify the part of the source code
that prints 'RMK
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 04:53:54PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in
the RiscPC these days he may well now be happy to fully free this
code so we can
On Wed 05 Sep, Peter Naulls wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 04:53:54PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in
the RiscPC these days he may well now be
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:36:02PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
Indeed. It's not that it's not available, it's that it not
DFSG-free, or at leaast I don't think it is (it the 'you can't
redistribute it unless the names of the executables and source files
are changed' bit that is the problem)
I cannot
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 04:53:54PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in
the RiscPC these days he may well now be happy to fully free this
code so we can just use that?
Did you ask him about this?
BTW, why did he not release the code
On Thu 30 Aug, Peter Naulls wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philip Blundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get the feeling this is still a bit of a black art. Looking at the
boot-floppies documentation, it's no surprise: there seems to be no
RiscPC specific information at all.
as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in the RiscPC
these days he may well now be happy to fully free this code so we can just
use that?
Might be worth asking. I don't think LinLoader works on ARM3 machines either
at the moment, so something would have to be done
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philip Blundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get the feeling this is still a bit of a black art. Looking at the
boot-floppies documentation, it's no surprise: there seems to be no RiscPC
specific information at all.
Would anybody who's been through
Yes linloader, it just hasn't been done.
Well, I can easily enough add it to the list of boot-floppies files. But
someone else will need to explain how to set it up, what you need to do to
make the kernel accessible to RISC OS, and so on.
p.
I get the feeling this is still a bit of a black art. Looking at the
boot-floppies documentation, it's no surprise: there seems to be no RiscPC
specific information at all.
Would anybody who's been through this process care to work on adding suitable
stuff to the manual? I suspect the
19 matches
Mail list logo
