Re: Sddm and non US Keyboard

On 2016-06-01, Erwan David wrote: > Hi, > > I just installed a testing in a VM, with KDE. I have a french keyboard > wich works in console and once kde is started. However, sddm uses a > US keyboard mapping. Switching to theme Circle, I can see that it is > the only

Sddm and non US Keyboard

Hi, I just installed a testing in a VM, with KDE. I have a french keyboard wich works in console and once kde is started. However, sddm uses a US keyboard mapping. Switching to theme Circle, I can see that it is the only mapping proposed. What can the problem be, and how can I

Re: Removing debian non-us from sources.list [was: debian non-us]

Chris Jones ha scritto: [...] Get:1 http://security.debian.org stable/updates Release.gpg [189B] [...] Get:2 http://mirror.pacific.net.au stable Release.gpg [386B] [...] #deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ stable main I suggest you to substitute stable with etch in sources.list or you will

debian non-us

I should do to fix this. I have a feeling I just need to remove references to non-us mirrors in /etc/sources.list and run apt-get update but I don't want to hose my debian system either. Thanks! CJ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: debian non-us

It doesn't exist anymore for new releases for quite some time now. unless you installed a very long time ago things from non-us that were deprecated since then you can safely remove it (and I double that there are such packages, certainly nothing important) On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:41:33 -0500

Re: debian non-us

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 07:53:18AM EST, Micha wrote: It doesn't exist anymore for new releases for quite some time now. unless you installed a very long time ago things from non-us that were deprecated since then you can safely remove it (and I double that there are such packages, certainly

Re: debian non-us

here and that I may not need this any more in my sources.list. Now, is there a document that would confirm this and explain what I should do to fix this. yes, it was in the release notes for sarge: http://www.debian.org/releases/oldstable/i386/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#s-non-us

Re: debian non-us

On Sat,22.Nov.08, 08:00:14, Chris Jones wrote: Installed etch about 2 years ago .. and I'm pretty sure my sources.list is the one that was generated when I did the install. That's why I posted. Nope, non-us was deprecated for sarge. Couldn't find a debian doc that actually confirms

Re: debian non-us

://www.debian.org/releases/oldstable/i386/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#s-non-us Looks good to me .. Since they don't mentions anything else apart from removing those lines I guess I should be OK. In any case since the Dutch mirrors no longer exist there's nothing else I can do anyway. My

Re: debian non-us

CJ writes: I have a feeling I just need to remove references to non-us mirrors in /etc/sources.list and run apt-get update but I don't want to hose my debian system either. Just remove the references to non-us. The law changed years ago. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Removing debian non-us from sources.list [was: debian non-us]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 08:17:44AM EST, John Hasler wrote: CJ writes: I have a feeling I just need to remove references to non-us mirrors in /etc/sources.list and run apt-get update but I don't want to hose my debian system either. Just remove the references to non-us. The law changed

Re: Removing debian non-us from sources.list [was: debian non-us]

On Sat,22.Nov.08, 09:31:11, Chris Jones wrote: W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: B5D0C804ADB11277 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems I'm a unclear as to why

Re: Removing debian non-us from sources.list [was: debian non-us]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:42:23AM EST, Andrei Popescu wrote: [..] You are missing this key: pub 1024D/ADB11277 2006-09-17 uid Etch Stable Release Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please post the output of 'dpkg -l debian-archive-keyring' before: -- ii

Re: Removing debian non-us from sources.list [was: debian non-us]

On Sat,22.Nov.08, 10:12:48, Chris Jones wrote: So, it looks like I was still using the keyring from before etch went stable (?) Yeap. Any idea why? What's the purpose of 'apt-key update'? Hhmm, the manpage is not very verbose. Anyway, if debian-archive-keyring is up-to-date you shouldn't

non-US et testing ?

Je voudrais savoir s'il existe d'autres lignes intéressantes pour des dépôts Debian officiels (non miroirs de ceux que j'ai) et quel est leur usage. Par exemple, je ne trouve rien concernant non-US pour testing, c'est normal ? Merci. Amitiés, [CITATION ALÉATOIRE : Quelle est la différence entre

Re: non-US et testing ?

salut, La partie non-US du dépôt Debian n'existe plus depuis la publication de Sarge il me semble... @plus Le mardi 27 mars 2007 09:24, Pierre Crescenzo a écrit : Bonjour, Je suis en testing et j'ai actuellement dans mon /etc/apt/sources.list : deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian testing main

Re: Where is debian-non-US

John Hasler wrote: (Aside: ``non-DE''? I thought the EU has so far staved off the software-patent idiocy.) _Similar_ reasons. Germany, for example, has a licensing law for games (unless it has been repealed recently). Germany has a licensing law for free software games? I never thought

Re: Where is debian-non-US

I wrote: _Similar_ reasons. Germany, for example, has a licensing law for games (unless it has been repealed recently). Johannes writes: Germany has a licensing law for free software games? It it my understanding (which may be obsolete or even simply erroneous) that in Germany computer games

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Tuesday, 06.03.2007 at 10:48 -0600, John Hasler wrote: _Similar_ reasons. Germany, for example, has a licensing law for games (unless it has been repealed recently). Johannes writes: Germany has a licensing law for free software games? It it my understanding (which may be obsolete

Re: Where is debian-non-US

Dave Ewart: On Tuesday, 06.03.2007 at 10:48 -0600, John Hasler wrote: It it my understanding (which may be obsolete or even simply erroneous) that in Germany computer games are not to be made available to children unless they have been approved and that the approval costs money. This is

Re: Where is debian-non-US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jochen Schulz wrote: Dave Ewart: On Tuesday, 06.03.2007 at 10:48 -0600, John Hasler wrote: It it my understanding (which may be obsolete or even simply erroneous) that in Germany computer games are not to be made available to children unless

Re: Where is debian-non-US

Joe Hart wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Correct. And on the EU level they are even discussing to make a similar law obligatory for all member states. The EU is not a body (yet) that can enforce laws. Therefore, they cannot mandate laws. Correct me if I am wrong, please, but I believe Jochen

Re: Where is debian-non-US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Glen Pfeiffer wrote: Joe Hart wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Correct. And on the EU level they are even discussing to make a similar law obligatory for all member states. The EU is not a body (yet) that can enforce laws. Therefore, they cannot

Where is debian-non-US

Hi, I'm using testing and since a few days I get errors like /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz: No such file or directory. Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 21:02 +0200, Andras Lorincz wrote: Hi, I'm using testing and since a few days I get errors like /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz: No such file or directory. Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? It has been

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:36:14PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: It has been deprecated since Woody became oldstable, or exactly the same time Sarge became stable. I don't think it was deprecated. I think it just went away. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez

Re: Where is debian-non-US

Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 14:39 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:36:14PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: It has been deprecated since Woody became oldstable, or exactly the same time Sarge became stable. I don't think it was deprecated. I think it just went away.

Re: Where is debian-non-US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/07 13:28, John Hasler wrote: Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. Specifically, liberalizations made it not necessary. -BEGIN

Re: Where is debian-non-US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/07 13:47, Greg Folkert wrote: On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 14:39 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:36:14PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: It has been deprecated since Woody became oldstable, or exactly the same time Sarge

Re: Where is debian-non-US

John Hasler wrote: Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. The changes removed restrictions preventing citizens of the land of the free from sending strong crypto out of the country. Given the status of software patents, though, it might be time to revive it. --

Re: Where is debian-non-US

Max Hyre writes: Given the status of software patents, though, it might be time to revive [non-US]. Then for similar reasons we'll need non-JP, non-DE, non-AU... -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 03:55:56PM -0500, Max Hyre wrote: John Hasler wrote: Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. The changes removed restrictions preventing citizens of the land of the free from sending strong crypto out of the country. Actually, the specific

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:28:15PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. Yet another exaple of enforcing US law to the rest of the world! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: Where is debian-non-US

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:24:31PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:28:15PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. Yet another

Re: Where is debian-non-US

Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non-US? I wrote: Due to changes in US law it was eliminated some time ago. idsvp-helga writes: Yet another exaple of enforcing US law to the rest of the world! ROFL. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: Where is debian-non-US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/07 17:10, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:24:31PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:28:15PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Andras Lorincz writes: Has something changed recently? Where is debian-non

Re: Where is debian-non-US

strong disapproval of; deplore. In computer terminology, deprecated features are those which *still exist* but that the vendor do not want you to use anymore. Effectively, non-US hasn't been updated since Sarge's release... and has disappeared. So, in effect, it is gone and out

Re: Where is debian-non-US

- + precari) mean to avert by prayer. The WordNet definition is express strong disapproval of; deplore. In computer terminology, deprecated features are those which *still exist* but that the vendor do not want you to use anymore. Effectively, non-US hasn't been updated since Sarge's release

Re: Where is debian-non-US

John Hasler wrote: Max Hyre writes: Given the status of software patents, though, it might be time to revive [non-US]. Then for similar reasons we'll need non-JP, non-DE, non-AU... Good point. Let me amend that to suggest the [non-patent] distribution. (Aside: ``non-DE''? I

Re: Where is debian-non-US

I wrote: Then for similar reasons we'll need non-JP, non-DE, non-AU... Max Hyre writes: Good point. Let me amend that to suggest the [non-patent] distribution. (Aside: ``non-DE''? I thought the EU has so far staved off the software-patent idiocy.) _Similar_ reasons. Germany, for example,

Non-US, was: [OT] FAT-Patente von Microsoft

Stephan Seitz schrieb: hauptsächlich für die USA. Das zeigt aber in meinen Augen eine gewisse Kurzsichtigkeit bei der Abschaffung von nonus (Non-US-Debian). Kaum, weil wir sonst noch non-eu (oder non-de), non-China oder sonst was bekommen würden. Ich würde mir schon eine Angabe im Paketheader

Re: Non-US

Am Freitag 13 Januar 2006 09:42 schrieb Matthias Taube: Ich würde mir schon eine Angabe im Paketheader wünschen, in welchen Staaten der Einsatz dieses Paketes möglicherweise Probleme bereitet. Das ist wohl eher unrealistisch. Da müssten Packet-Maintainer ja immer noch nen Juristen mit

Re: Non-US

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Christian Frommeyer wrote: Am Freitag 13 Januar 2006 09:42 schrieb Matthias Taube: Ich würde mir schon eine Angabe im Paketheader wünschen, in welchen Staaten der Einsatz dieses Paketes möglicherweise Probleme bereitet. Das ist wohl eher unrealistisch.

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 0:27:12 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Gene Heskett wrote: On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Touche', I had indeed momentarily forgotten that. I had also at the time spoken rather pointedly to my senators and

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take individual actions. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take individual actions. Thank you. Precisely my point. Mike --

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Mike McCarty wrote: John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take individual actions. Thank you. Precisely my point. And more to

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take individual actions. I don't know how it works in

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 10:40:19AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: Mike McCarty wrote: John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to take individual actions. I don't

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:54:03PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Well, since we are in FULL TOPIC DRIFT MODE, there is a Navy chaplain who is on hunger strike here in the USA because he has been ordered not to pray in public in uniform in the name of Jesus Christ. He claims that this is not a

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Carl Fink wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:54:03PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Well, since we are in FULL TOPIC DRIFT MODE, there is a Navy chaplain who is on hunger strike here in the USA because he has been ordered not to pray in public in uniform in the name of Jesus Christ. He claims that

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Ron Johnson writes: I don't know how it works in the post-modern EU, but in the rest of the world, if you choose not to obey orders from the leaders you have sworn to obey... _Chosen_ to swear to obey. ...the coercive power of the state lands full square on your shoulders. The individual

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote: Ron Johnson writes: I don't know how it works in the post-modern EU, but in the rest of the world, if you choose not to obey orders from the leaders you have sworn to obey... _Chosen_ to swear to obey. ...the coercive power of the

Re: OT --was Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 13:01:05 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote: richard writes: Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make more difference. Armies and police forces consist of individuals who

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Ron Johnson writes: Why is it that thugs can extort protection money from small business owners? Because to those businessmen, the pain of losing that business which his life is poured into, and which supports his family is greater than giving away some money. Exactly. And so they choose to

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 16:31 -0600, John Hasler wrote: Ron Johnson writes: Why is it that thugs can extort protection money from small business owners? Because to those businessmen, the pain of losing that business which his life is poured into, and which supports his family is greater

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:47:28PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Really? I heard him interviewed on the radio within the last week. Do you know the outcome? The Navy Lieutenant declared victory, even though the Navy didn't change its policy.

FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

See http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/11/0555252.shtml Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US, anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel? Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so? Is it time to revive the non-US repository so

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

of patents. Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the owner is likely to enforce them on us. Is it time to revive the non-US repository so that at least the rest or the world can still transfer files between Linux and Windows? Don't forget non-DE as well. -- John

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi John Hasler wrote: Don't forget non-DE as well. Why de ? AFAIK European Parliament rejected the proposed software patent directive on 6 July 2005. Is there something specific about Germany ? cheers, theo. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version:

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

to revive the non-US repository so that at least the rest or the world can still transfer files between Linux and Windows? Don't forget non-DE as well. I never understood the reasoning for this approach. This divides free software according to local ordinances. I think the countries which impose

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

I wrote: Don't forget non-DE as well. Theo writes: Is there something specific about Germany ? Games. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

instead. I don't understand what you mean by ...the countries which impose them should be designated non-free... This raises another point which is unclear to me -- how much of the current non-free repository is like the old non-US in that the problem is really non-free local ordinances

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

to revive the non-US repository so that at least the rest or the world can still transfer files between Linux and Windows? Don't forget non-DE as well. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hendrik writes: Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US, anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel? No (that patent is not new). They can pry my FAT

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600 Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hendrik writes: Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US, anyway. Do we have

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: Unfortunately, my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent. and its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the act of writing a FAT system. If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a clean-room creation and

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

make this distinction? For example, instead of a non-US repository, you could have a US repository excluding all free software which is designated as illegal in the US, or otherwise encumbered by freedom-infringing US laws. This would serve the same purpose and avoid inconveniencing non-US users

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West writes: ...my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent. They intend to enforce it against manufacturers of NVRAM storage devices: there's money there. ...its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the act of writing a FAT system. It's

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600 Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which Patent? What is the date? Stolen from Cnet talkback posting: Thanks for the reply. According to http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp they are talking about 3 Patents

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:01:54 -0500 Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, archive your debian box, then reformat and run windows until this issue is settled. I've been looking for an excuse to do just that. Windows is clearly a superior operating system. And now that all out FAT belong to them

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:55:52 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure the anit-monopoly guys will have something to say about this. A patent is a legal monopoly enforced by the courts. The issue raised on /., that purveror of all great knowledge and wisdom, was that a

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents. Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the owner is likely to enforce them on us. Unfortunately, my understanding is that

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Jochen Schulz wrote: Andrew Sackville-West: [snip] If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a clean-room creation and would probably be okay. No, you are confusing the patent system with copyright. A patent covers *an idea*, not an implementation. IANAL, but I did

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09:07 -0600 Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Andrew Sackville-West: [snip] If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a clean-room creation and would probably be okay. No, you are confusing the patent system

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital cameras don't fall under the patent. the dcf specifcation (http://www.exif.org/dcf.PDF)

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

have nothing to do with them. They have their own laws and will have to make their own decisions. Furthermore, does this policy include patents from countries which admit that they have a broken patent system?* What's that got to do with anything? For example, instead of a non-US repository, you

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Mike McCarty: No, you are confusing the patent system with copyright. A patent covers *an idea*, not an implementation. -- snip Ideas are not patentable (in the USA). You are probably right, I must have confused this. Although I find the distinction not to be easy, at least when software

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree. Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to roughly describe an implementation. There are actually a lot of

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/g120005.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions. [0] any new and useful process, machine, manufacture... Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works. [0]

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

what you mean by ...the countries which impose them should be designated non-free... I mean that something is clearly non-free, and it's not always the software license. The issue is what is the best way make this distinction? For example, instead of a non-US repository, you could have a US

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

John Hasler wrote: I wrote: A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us cannot be distributed at all. Marty writes: That sounds like a pretty subjective standard. Yes. Who decides what's likely? Who is us? Debian. Does us include billions of Chinese and

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0500, Marty wrote: John Hasler wrote: Marty writes: That sounds like a pretty subjective standard. Yes. Who decides what's likely? Who is us? Debian. Does us include billions of Chinese and Indians? US patents have nothing to do with them.

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

against exporting cryptography from the US, there fore we needed non-US based servers for those products. non-free is a totally other story, the Debian Social Contract supports Free Software (Free like freedom not beer). Therefore some free (like beer) software which is not free (freedom

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu: On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree. Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 08:30 pm, loos wrote: Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu: On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree. Actually,

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

the non-US designation always seemed like such an anomaly. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Hal Vaughan a écrit : But Zero-point energy works. I know it does. I saw Colonel Carter working with a zero-point module on Stargate SG1. Hal I saw her too, it's a huge power source. You can even create a vortex to another galaxy. Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 03:26 +0100, Tokar wrote: Hal Vaughan a écrit : But Zero-point energy works. I know it does. I saw Colonel Carter working with a zero-point module on Stargate SG1. Hal I saw her too, it's a huge power source. You can even create a vortex to another

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Jason Michaelson wrote: One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital cameras don't fall under the patent. Personally, if someone

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 09:55 pm, Joey Hess wrote: Jason Michaelson wrote: One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Marty wrote: John Hasler wrote: I wrote: A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us cannot be distributed at all. Marty writes: That sounds like a pretty subjective standard. Yes. Who decides what's likely? Who is us? Debian. Does us include

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

, which he violated in Panama. He was then transported from Panama by US forces, and tried on US soil, and put into a US jail. For example : the US had a law against exporting cryptography from the US, there fore we needed non-US based servers for those products. [snip] I think my example

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09:07 -0600 Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Likewise, the clean room argument made above by Andrew is inapplicable to a patent. What is covered by the patents I read would (IMO) preclude anyone from creating LFN entries in a FAT style

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

patent expires if they can. So I'd suspect we'll have plenty of advance notice. For example : the US had a law against exporting cryptography from the US, there fore we needed non-US based servers for those products. And which were flouted extensively, so extensively that they eventually

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Also, bear in mind that at one point, panama was our territory, but I'm not sure if Noriega actually did some of his drug related stuff while it was still our territory. No. Panama has been an independent nation since it seceded from Colombia in 1903. Perhaps you're referring to the

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Gene Heskett wrote: On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:31, Mike McCarty wrote: loos wrote: [snip] Debian is international, but like any other person juridic or physic it can be sued for infringe a law in the country where it infringes this law. Or even in other countries. Noriega was

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

Mike McCarty wrote: Gene Heskett wrote: [snip] Also, bear in mind that at one point, panama was our territory, but I'm Nope. Never was. It was a part of Venezuela, and we helped it get I can't believe I wrote that. It was *Colombia*, of course. Mike --

  1   2   3   4   5   >