On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]:
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition?
[...]
That's our freedom (in your definition).
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason
why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail,
because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't
remember as a whole. And I doubt
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more
freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a
terminological
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*you* don't get it (I'm good at personnal attack too): this is a way
to lead on the path of understanding why the GPL.
And do you already know what comes after understanding on that path
you are talking about?
I hope you are
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against
code closing?
You mix everything up. There is no need for protection of open code.
Well many disagree with you, many think there is such a need. Me first.
OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
+
+
+
+IPv6 code is protected by the GPLv3
+(C)opyright MMVIII Sylvain BERTRAND sylvain.bertrand at gmail dot com
diff -u sic-0.9/sic.c sic-0.9-ipv6/sic.c
--- sic-0.9/sic.c
...
really...
Kind regards,
Sylvain
Kind regards,
Anselm
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
diff -u sic-0.9/LICENSE sic-0.9-ipv6/LICENSE
--- sic-0.9/LICENSE 2007-02-13 17:02:16.0 +0100
+++ sic-0.9-ipv6/LICENSE2008-05-19 13:32
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use single GPL licensed software, use Linux and secure your digital freedom!
You think this is freedom?
Freedom which does not defend itself *will* be abused again and again,
and after 15 years of software engineering, I said it's
Many are very wrong. The BSD like licenses have more freedom than GPL
licenses... since you can wipe out freedom from the code.
What is a freedom which can destroy itself?
It's is *not* a comparison based on the amount of freedom of each
type of license. That's plain stupid.
People who are
Would a minimal x11 visual bell be doable/a good idea?
Sylvain
2008/1/25, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Sylvain,
* Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-24 17:31]:
Would a minimal x11 visual bell be doable/a good idea?
To solve which problem?
With dwm when you have an instant messaging client and/or an IRC
client at work without sound: you
2008/1/22, Renick Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 03:28:39PM +0100, Anthony Brown wrote:
FYI: I just downloaded and early binary release of JDK 7 and it looks
like the new Java version behaves properly with dwm (using 'standard'
dwm-4.7). I tried using some Gui apps that
2008/1/17, markus schnalke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for dwm, I don't know what would be the cost to build directly the
X11 packets or to recode the XCB lib straight on Linux syscalls.
This will make dwm unportable and we should implement
Hi,
I'm looking to reduce my software stack and I'm targeting the C
library. I know I just need to perform direct Linux syscalls and it
will be fine. But, I would like to load ELF shared objects in my
process space and for that, the only way I know is to use the dynamic
linking lib from the C
Ario is a new GTK+/GCONF front-end for mpd:
http://linuxfr.org/redirect/54111.html
2007/10/17, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 03:14:01PM +0200, Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
2007/10/17, pancake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yup, i am the maintainer of this compiler in pkgsrc since 2003.
The projects looks like a bit stopped but I like it very much
2007/10/10, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:49:02PM +0200, Enno Gottox Boland wrote:
That brings me to another style question:
For me, it is easier to read and to understand when I write linked
structures that way:
typedef struct Abc {
...
struct
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/realloc.html
2007/9/24, Chris Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jukka Salmi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, why using the ternary operator? Are there systems where
`realloc(NULL, size)' does not behave identically to `malloc(size)'?
I remember
2007/9/20, Tuncer Ayaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 9/20/07, Tuncer Ayaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everybody,
With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
called awesome[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
What do you think about this?
regards,
Sylvain
20 matches
Mail list logo
