On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Vincent Torri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
that the fact is not such licence is a hindrance but such licence can
give us developpers. That's different. So, from what i've understood, wrt
Hello everyone.
Attached patch fixes a couple issues with current typebuf in EFM.
First, now typebuf is cleared out when you change current directory.
Second, it has a 5 seconds timeout, so if you don't type anything
during this time, it's cleared out too.
PS: Typebuf is a way for faster
Hi
With this extern directory and your new Efl_win32.zip evil compiles. GREAT
!
I will test eet tonight.
thanks very much
2008/7/25 Dmitriy Mazovka [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello!
Thank you for interest:).
Sorry for compilation problems, it is my fault.
Till today I had a plug instead of
dan sinclair schrieb:
On 24-Jul-08, at 5:26 PM, Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb:
One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most
of
the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and raster. You
wrote lots of code already, and
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be sure to give OpenEmbedded a try, this will give you a major kickstart. All
of E is in OE. Openmoko is relying on OE as well.
And it is WAY better than ltib. It have lots of packages, including E,
and their
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
tree - if it is
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000), Carsten Haitzler wrote:
if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
tree - if it is to
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
If you think that a project is successful based on how many
companies have used your software then of course actually licensing
your sw is not
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into
what do
Build log for Enlightenment DR 0.17 on 2008-07-25 07:10:57 -0700
Build logs are available at http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs
Packages that failed to build:
enna http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/enna.log
epdf http://download.enlightenment.org/tests/logs/epdf.log
typebuf should understand some basic shell commands like cd, cd -, cd ~, cd
.., that would be cool and even faster :)
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Гусев Фёдор [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
Attached patch fixes a couple issues with current typebuf in EFM.
First, now typebuf is
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:49:01 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
That's just wrong.
No, it's not just wrong. You may not agree with it, but that
doesn't make it wrong, particularly if you don't offer any
counterexamples or evidence to prove it.
Maintaining a fork is in my opinion completely
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:56:20 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
I think all the above points are frustrating , why? simply because
*i* dont want that my effort makes others take profit and dont give
anything to me. Of course you'll be proud that your
library/application is used on
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 14:33:25 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
Yes. That's the exact purpose of the GPL/LPGL.
I know what the purpose is. I've read both quite thoroughly.
Worrying about the reuse of the code is a good thing. But imho when
we move code around, most of the time it's our own
Jose Gonzalez schrieb:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the case of
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:16:17 -0700 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We do not own anything because we are not a legal entity. So
there is no such thing as our code. There is raster's code, and
there's devilhorns' code, and there's your code...but there's no
our code.
Which is
2008/7/26 Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the case of
On 25-Jul-08, at 7:48 PM, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the
18 matches
Mail list logo
