is just
prejudice and elitism at its worst.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are
(pretty low, that is..)
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of technological measure and you
have not explained why you think that should be ignored
documents, both unenforcable and unlikely
to be brought to court.
(Additionally, I personally don't agree that the restriction exists at all).
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Finally, I don't declare it non-free and have spoken against such
unhelpful ambiguous language in the past.
Then we are in agreement.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
yourself.
I understand what you're trying to say
this as a sane reading of the license.
Especially given that the license specifically says that you can charge for
making copies.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that
sentence
does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately
misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me
may not read the files. I guess in that case, he could
sue himself for access. Or maybe the FSF could sue him in order to force him
to restore access to himself.)
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:04:36PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The license says You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute. It does not say ... control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B
to put a hardcopy in a safe.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument
that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the difference?
One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
Your lack of attention to detail is troubling.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib comment. I can see
you're interested
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't
simply be ignored
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations prevent you from making
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:41:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Not in the context of copyright law, as Raul already pointed out.
I
of reasoning.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:34:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give
important? It's a copyright licence, not a
distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's
mentioned explicitly in that clause too.
It's important because copies that are not made for distrubution are covered
under both fair use and the right to make backups.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:26:27PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can
you give an example of such a device?
My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII
freedoms, it's non-free.
Yes, you're right. However, we need to distinguish between when something
is actually impractical, and when someone is merely pretending it is
impractical because they don't like it.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:44:33AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation
it to someone who doesn't understand Japanese. That's plain stupid.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before convenience even became a factor.
As far as the convenience arguments, as I pointed out earlier, the
differences between freedom and convenience are quite clearly delineated in
the dictionary, and attempts to conflate the two do not make for compelling
arguments.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 03:08:42PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I don't know about civil law countries, but I'd love to know why you think it
isn't enforcable there.
Who cares?
It discriminates against several groups of people and fields of endeavor.
The point is moot.
--Adam
--
To
that freedom makes certain things
easier, or more convienient?
No, it's desirable because it's free. Convenience is subjective. Freedom is
absolute.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation instead, I must
instead simply not transmit the document *at all* if I am stuck with
an ASCII-only
or
think without externally imposed restraints
2: immunity from an obligation or duty [syn: {exemption}]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
convenience
n 1: the state of being suitable or opportune; chairs arranged
for his own convenience
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights
free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the
license more free than one
being used for unethical purposes, but
IMO the risk is low enough that we need not consider every licenses with COV
clause non-free. If we don't trust a particular vendor we can simply choose
not to distribute their software.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
By this reasoning, we should reject every package for which someone holds
copyright, because it is
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments
were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of
venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of
discrimination, it can be
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
already
has the potential to create a financial hardship on the defendant, due to an
inherent discrimination present in the law. Since the COV clause does not
substantially increase the costs of defending oneself, it cannot be
construed as discrimination per se.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:22:21PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the
software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to
this issue.
What if the People's Republic of Kraplakistan made a law that all of
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:56:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
From my own experience, I cannot agree with those who think
the marginal cost is a negligible one.
It's not negligible. Just not significant to the point where it increases
the risk to an unacceptable level IMO.
--Adam
--
To
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:51:31PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
I'd simply advocate that we stop distributing material copyrighted by
citizens of Kraplakistan[1]. I don't think we should use the DFSG to try
and change legal systems. As many others on this list have said in the past
as well, we
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 05:12:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I believe negligible includes your viewpoint.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics; I believe I made my viewpoint quite
clear.
My own question, when presented with any such cost, is on what basis
it *is* free, since the DFSG
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:00:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take
when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this
one
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:09PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
The rule, afaict (and I'm not an American), is that copyright *cannot*
*be* *enforced*, which is not the same thing at all ...
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the possession of a copy of
the code. You are not permitted to have a copy of the code without
permission under the law. Period, end of story, except no substitutions.
Please cite
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Yes, I am aware that if you spontaneously HAVE a copy that its not
infringement, it is the ACT of copying that is infringing. And no, I'm not
interested in those cases. I am interested in cases where people are running
apt-get
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:15:52PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
am not convinced that making an FTP connection and downloading the material
from a licensed distributor does not constitute copying, thus requiring
permission.
How can this hypothetical downloader make a copy of something he
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:10:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:25:03PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Because the current illegitmate patent regime is the law.
No, it is not. Portfolios of invalid patents hold their value by means of
FUD and financial might,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:49:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to distribute
the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why is B guilty of
copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license to distribute; or
2: why is B
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
question is whether its okay to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
download.
Since the GPL itself does not require you to accept it unless you want to
modify or
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
Chris, a click-wrap license
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:37:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we're supposed to take the word of a self-professed collaborator with the
current illegitimate patent regime, over the word of someone who works for
an organization dedicated to fighting this threat to intellectual freedom?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:08:17PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
package kde
severity 317359 wishlist
thanks
...summarian conclusion: Just remove Agreement from those tabs, leave
License on them. ;o)
...subject 'n justification tells the story, further discussion can be
found on
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:09:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by
gunzip, but effect is similar.
If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:16:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This absolute protection did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
the home recording act.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:11:56PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm not saying that Debian is Napster.
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
I'm saying that we
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:54:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
You failed to quote the bit about how what Napster was doing wasn't
supposed to be illegal.
That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
Napster in trouble. We aren't.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
Napster in trouble. We aren't.
Or if we're doing similar things.
Such as: making available copyrighted
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
The rest of
us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:06:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If
he
violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
This isn't nothing to do
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:49:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, I have made that claim. I've even shown the commands
to issue to obtain evidence that we do so.
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:17:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't distribute the work
is not equivalent to we do not distribute
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:43:53PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments more than I.
I asked for the rationale behind his calling fair use a perversion,
and he refused to supply one. It's that
copied, distributed, or modified after
hearing (actually or constructively) about the announcement.
The licensor is bound by copyright law. He cannot distribute the work or
any work based on it without accepting the GPL and abiding by its terms.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
revoke your right to use
the program after you have legally obtained it.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. What course of action do you advocate? So far I hear you telling
other people they're wrong -- useful if they are, not so useful if
they're the least wrong of all possible
. Perhaps what we are discussing is the fuzzy line
between hardware and software, but the problem lies in defining what is
hardware or software, not in trying to apply the DFSG to hardware.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
blank
CD's with Debian written on them.
This will have the added benefit of drastically improving release times.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
happens. In the mean time I'll be happy to send my
textified version off-line to anybody who's interested.
Why don't you just post it on people.d.o?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the license re-interpreation to stop people from
distributing Pine with a maildir patch?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the original author's rights to
require that any derivative works be distributed with the or any later
version clause.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that he finds unacceptable.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compelled to offer a license under the terms of this License,
which is GPL v2.
The original licensor (copyright holder) can govern the distribution terms
of derived works. This is a right granted by copyright law.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
you might convince
.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
third parties who
execute a program on someone else's computer.
OK. I'm not sure how this is relevant to a discussion about whether the GPL
must be accepted in order to download or make personal copies of GPL'd
software.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:29:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
The CONTU final report states that The conversion of a program from one
higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this
right, as would the right to add features to the program
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
the reason you can copy a file
which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
I don't
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
copyrighted works for
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
(and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:42:06AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
I think it is analogous to Quake. Quake's source is free, but to do
anything useful (or fun) requires the shareware wads. So until
someone actually writes a free driver that ndiswrapper can use, I
would say that it belongs in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:05:13PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:30:59AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
ndiswrapper was created specifically to load windows drivers for network
devices that Linux doesn't support yet, so I think it's doubtful that
someone would write
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:34:07PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:48:06PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
Someone might write a free driver for Windows, that this wrapper could
run.
Yes, someone could. But I doubt someone will. What would be the point?
You're
91 matches
Mail list logo
