On Nov 24, 2009, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Yes, we may rename the Live images to i386.
If we're going to rename directories to match base arches... How about
using “x86_32”?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish
of the new GCC feature. I can't find any evidence that
this bug is in any way related with VTA or with the new GCC.
So how do you get from “GCC debug info was fixed, with one kernel build
and a few hours as casualty” to “two-day slip in rawhide kernels”?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp
On Sep 10, 2009, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:35:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
generates much better debug information
working on something
else that was not quite as urgent ;-(
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat
is
fixed, you're reminded to remove the work-around.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software
-Free Software from Fedora is probably to
resort to Freed-ora Linux-libre builds, available from
http://linux-libre.fsfla.org/, and to exclude *-firmware and
microcode_ctl from the Fedora repositories.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish
On May 6, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/05/2009 09:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But
there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact
that they did. Do you?
Yes. NVIDIA is aware
On May 5, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/04/2009 10:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it is probably something that we could try to address with
Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner
yan...@broadcom.com). Have you reached out
derived it from Linux, but refuse to offer it under
terms that are compatible with the licensing terms of Linux, rather than
becoming their hostages and supporting their attack on our communities
and our values.
Best,
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must
the specific details that, honestly, I was baffled you
weren't aware of.
So much for my trying to anonimize the guilty to avoid undesirable
reaction. Thanks (not) for pretty much forcing me to change that, just
to feed your... What is it? Pride? Laziness? Distrust? :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva
be taken out so that the other can be
redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a
license that's not even compatible with GPLv2?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be
redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a
license that's not even compatible with GPLv2
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
under your standards) with the other
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled
, and you pretend
it's the same.
Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to myself,
but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me.
It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it.
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp
with a
friendly tone and helped me see my error.
On Jul 30, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, RSAREF couldn't have been modified. It had restricted
distribution and everyone had to get their own copy
above are older than the discussion, but the point stands that
some piece of software could only be distributed under the GPL, and by
people who had accepted a patent license that prevented them from
doing just that, regardless of any copyright license
incompatibilities.
--
Alexandre Oliva
as to the facts, which ends up
exposing and denouncing the FUD.
But you have opened my eyes in some ways. While I do not agree with
you 100% of the way, I have learned many things that I did not know
before :)
Good. (part of the) mission accomplished :-)
Best,
--
Alexandre Oliva http
gives equal mention to
Linux And GNU.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list
view?
It says a lot about a person when he demands with such force that only
those who oppose his point of view shut up.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org
some resemblance to this to your suggestion about
clearly labeling classical information, but I don't see it.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
even conflicts with those guidelines in
important ways, both in policy and package set. Why would anyone say
Fedora is a Free distribution when it isn't?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member
of it, that would make even less sense.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list
not that interested in technical discussions to
filter them out more easily? Would that work for you?
I thought so.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
about it. That's why it is so important that you and
everyone help spread these ideas. Just by using the term GNU/Linux,
you'll get several opportunities to talk about it and spread
awareness.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED
rm -rf /
:-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list
: on the operating system that people chose to run on
top of the kernel Linux.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
stop
trying to fix that error here or anywhere else?
Wow, there really are no limits to double standards and false pretexts
:-/
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
of the whole under the GPL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
or less GNU.
They don't affect GNU software at all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora
On Jul 28, 2008, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
laugh at Alexandra and ignore him ?
^
Wow, it wasn't enough to rename the operating system and the movement,
now you're trying to rename *me*? :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free
in being Free Software?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
.
Not necessarily as replacement for this approach, of course, but
perhaps in addition to.
Thanks for your insights,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
-libre1.tar.bz2 and
you'll see how misled and fooled you were by the people you're siding
with and promoting.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
goal.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -o
GNU/Linux
That should be enough.
Enough for what?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé
wouldn't be
surprised if you have exceeded my total posts in your short time
here...
I've been a member of this list since the Fedora project was launched.
I was on Red Hat [GNU/]Linux lists before it was renamed to Fedora.
Not that how long I've been around makes any difference...
--
Alexandre
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personal attack because we do not agree with your purist ways.
Purist? Who's the one denying that it's not a combination of GNU with
Linux, but rather pure Linux? :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
On Jul 28, 2008, Marko Vojinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 July 2008 16:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
And it's not GNU utilities. It's an operating system. If it was just
the GNU utilities, you might be right.
GNU is *not* an operating system. An operating system must have
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two
source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as
a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so
On Jul 29, 2008, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RSAREF didn't stop the program from being created in the first place,
or from being distributed under the GPL in source form.
Per the FSF, RIPEM was a derived work of gmp
them to keep them in
ignorance and stop them from pursuing freedom, pretty please make the
tiny effort it takes to get used to naming the system GNU+Linux or
GNU/Linux.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA
, just not so much on the Fedora users' list.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list
of that
book, the publisher says that it's going to say it's an
AlexOliva-based book, in a feeble attempt to not offend people on
either side of this debate.
Would that even pass for an excuse, you think?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist
at the
end of the day, and realize I did something other than surviving,
making money, and thinking of how to make more money.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org
might
actually side with the copyright holder of the program you modified,
in this case.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
in without breathing
out. My lawyer says so, and I have no doubt so does yours.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
its name in the name of the distro
or the os.
s/grub/linux/
CQD
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps no code is shared, but what about the design?
GNU's not Unix. The credit for the design is right there in the name.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The
permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a
consequence of this.
Not _just_ the permissions. The exact terms of the license must
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer that the Linux based distros had shared more of the
BSD-origin work rather than the GPL-encumbered GNU copies.
Obviously. Have you ever wondered why?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free
own decision to
reject code that they couldn't distribute on their own terms. Oddly,
a choice they claim to make to enable to people to do just what
they're complaining about: create derived works that they can't use.
Talk about consistency.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
kernel.
Anything wrong with that?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing
stated.
Yep. Clever use of fallacies and dependence on public ignorance and
gullibility :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
-and-open-source-advocates-just-get-along/
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list
.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe
the GPL, and it might very well backfire in the long run, if it
scares businesses away from the GPL. We already have enough FUD, no
need to make room for even more.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board
.
A beautiful case of circumvention of the spirit of the GPL and of
copyleft by legal technicalities. Way to go! NOT
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
for another one, but there have to be
some out there :)
Why? If Linux folks didn't bother rewriting a majority of their
operating system, because it was already implemented and readily
available in the GNU porject, why would they have bothered with
rewriting a much smaller piece of it?
--
Alexandre
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
2. You may [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions
There's no room to interpret that as saying or some other license
you found on some web page
There's no denying of this possibility
world, that's how the majority of software is?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.
Taking away any right is immoral.
Like, let's say, taking away one's right
the GNU operating system? I don't see
what this has to do with freedom. Sure, they can use it, or write
something else. But if they use it, that won't make it something
else, no matter how wonderful the kernel they use with it is.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
(with grub as a side-effect), and the distro name is Fedora Linux;
Unless you revise your proposed criterion, this would actually lead to
Fedora GNU GRUB.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé
-based or GNU-based.
Evidently no list outside the Fedora project would be suitable for
this discussion, and I don't see any other list in which it wouldn't
be ruled off-topic or fail to reach the intended audience.
If you have a better suggestion, I'm all, erhm, eyes :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva
it as fact casts a shade of doubt on every other
sentence there.
/OT
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
to userland; there's no
actual API to use from userland. Whatever APIs there are, they're
provided by GNU libc.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
development of GNU+Linux to make the
combination usable. Linux was not perceived as a relevant kernel for
the GNU operating system back then.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
,
which is technical rather than philosophical.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. But taking
away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over
others
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever
you could do before you received those rights. It's a grant, so it
adds. It's not a contract, so it can't take away.
Per wikipedia
you wanted to arrive at. That's called a
false analogy. It's caused by circular reasoning. Unless you have
reasons to support the parallel, that is. Please share.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board
On Jul 22, 2008, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 22:34:39 -0300,
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 22, 2008, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any evidence of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd sounds about
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
You're probably right that Red Hat gave GNU/Linux some polish that
even enthusiasts needed, but it started 3 years into Linux's history
and 11 years into GNU's history, so I don't think we're talking about
stop offering the program under the old
license and start offering it under the new license. Or they may
start offering the program under both. Or offer it under some license
to some parties, and under another license to other parties.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
is not a restriction, it's a
statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright
holder.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected
by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted.
Why do you consider that acceptable?
It's undesirable, indeed, but what's to stop
, and that's what
applications for GNU/Linux are compatible with, after being built
using the GNU libc API. As for the kernel ABI, nothing but GNU libc
really cares about it, since pretty much nobody else issues syscalls
directly.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
and the primary developer of Linus.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
code in all possible situations.
And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open
Source Software are about?
That's what
it was an operating system!
:-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
On Jul 22, 2008, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've little sympathy for users being harassed into calling Linux
something else,
Me too. Likewise GNU. It works both ways.
Linux = kernel (says Linus)
GNU = operating system (says RMS)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe
of the software.
This is unlike some Open Source licenses, that do make such
requirements, even if you'd rather not distribute the software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
encoded in the GPL, over the whole of
the combined work.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.
Rights
-related bits would be GNU-related as well, for X
runs on top of GNU.
So, how are you going to count it to come to the same conclusion?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
to combine
them or not, you're not being forced.
They withhold your freedom to redistribute
Your freedom to redistribute is respected. There's no such thing as
freedom to choose whatever license you want in the FSD. Choosing
licenses is not freedom, it's power.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
the teacher to do so?
Why do you think this situation is any different? Why is it that the
bullies get away with using a demeaning term to refer to our kid, and
even find that they have a right to do it? Just because they invented
the name?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?
That people can and should decide it, sure, by all means. Whether or
not it's fair, that depends on how they decide. It's between them and
their conscience.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software
probably right that Red Hat gave GNU/Linux some polish that
even enthusiasts needed, but it started 3 years into Linux's history
and 11 years into GNU's history, so I don't think we're talking about
the same kind of early.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software
; it only adds to the things you're entitled to do.
That said, IANAL, so please don't take this as legal advice.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Several times, you end up having to decide between promoting software
freedom and promoting the software that happens to be Free (and OSS).
Yes, the divisive nature of the GPL is unfortunate.
FYI, the GPL
have any reason to assume that a module can't be a work on
its own?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Jul 21, 2008, Anders Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(For the record, Emacs is my favourite editor, before anyone else has
a stroke and starts bleating Heresy!!)
Heresy! Emacs is not (just) an editor! :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software
On Jul 21, 2008, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Not at all. The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.
I keep telling my wife that But she doesn't buy it.
She does. She just doesn't tell you about it :-P :-D
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I think you're pasting each other. The question is just not related
with the sub-topic at hand, and it's ambiguous.
Heh. -ENOENGLISH. s/pasting/talking past/
This part of the conversation started with someone
for developer, but even if you disregard
this detail you'll still realize there's a communication failure
because of the often-inflated meaning for Linux.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 20, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't recall ever having any reason to
have a name for a subset of a distribution that only included the GNU
components and the kernel. Can someone who
demand or even request anything, it merely grants permissions that are
enough to respect your freedoms while defending everyone else's.
What a spoiler :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
