Hi, in order to REALLY point out the truth, replace ISV by proprietary
software publishers.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:20:00AM +0500, gil...@altern.org wrote:
Today, if I'm an upstream developer, say the Mozilla Foundation with
Firefox, I have to work hard to make sure my application will work
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any contingency plans in place,
for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost?
FesCo?
Legal?
Is there any searchable parameter,
to work out what
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
[1] = means you can't do it with GPL
It explicitly grant this right.
What you're explicitly told s that you won't
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabrar...@1407.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you
can
infringe that they
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without
the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand your point.
1/You don't
Note: this is my last email on this thread
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:55:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
without the right.
And you have no right!
If I told you you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
Argh... I know I said I wouldn't, but this one really needs to have some scale
applied.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:43:28AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
They just promised (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to
sue you.
So what about the patents owned by redhat?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:55:27AM +0530, Steve Repo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
That was something I found weird... on an Ubuntu (Jaunty) machine:
Ubuntu's GRUB is patched for ext4, the patch didn't make
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 05:15:51PM +0200, Frank Elsner wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:37:40 +0530 (IST) balu wrote:
hi all,
i installed fedora-11 today and when i wanted the '/' to be formatted as
'ext4', i got an alert msg that it is not allowed to format '/' as ext4.
is not 'ext4'
Hi,
Sorry, no RPMS, and I did it from the bleeding edge source code :)
No RPMS yet but I'm considering to propose one for rpmfusion.
But no promises :)
Anyway, for the brave here it goes:
http://blog.1407.org/2009/06/11/xbmc-for-fedora-11/
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:13:50PM +0100, Steve Searle wrote:
Yes I agree with this. IANAL, or an expert in licening or GNU, but
AFAIK the GNU licence covers re-distribution, not running. In other
words anyone can run in without having to agree to any conditions. But
if you want to
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
No. For example, even with GPL, it's normal for people to insist that
their software is not being released for purposes of helping commit
crimes. For example, some software which rips CDs include EULAs that
prohibit the use for
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:55AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
No. For example, even with GPL, it's normal for people to insist that
their software is not being released for purposes of helping commit
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:53:40AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:55AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
For instance, a license that says:
you may not use this software for larceny
*IS*NOT* Free Software.
Then ISTM that whoever releases
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0200, Neil Jerram wrote:
Hello everyone, this is my first openmoko email, so please be gentle!
It seems clear to me that the so-called predictive keyboard is not
actually predictive at all; it is actually fuzzy, in terms of how it
maps your stylus or
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 08:35:39AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
It's one of the costs (and, actually, one of the benefits) of working
with open source. With Proprietary you have guarantees. When they
fall down on the job, or when other bad stuff happens, you can
theoretically get some sort of
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Miles Sabin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Laszlo BERES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miles Sabin wrote:
The RHEL signing keys have, however, been used by an unauthorized
party to sign unauthorized packages. Some people would say that that
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 05:38:02PM +0930, Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 07:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I still don't see why they couldn't have said that it would be *unsafe*
to install packages, without saying specifically why. As opposed to
You still don't see because you don't want
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 09:39:46AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Roger Grosswiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, but is it also on fedora, with openssh-issue? Or how could we now
find out, if our systems are compromised too?
I think you misread the
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:27:22AM +0200, Florian Sievert wrote:
the best way to handle the issue. Else, I need to calculate with the
worst case and that is a security breach with compromissed signed keys.
No information about the time the problem occurs, so you have to see all
fedora
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:20:18AM +0300, Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
2008/8/4 Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One thing I didn't notice was something saying *how* does it play those
proprietary content? Has it jammed in some naughty decoders under the
hood? Is it really going to be any better at
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:27:40PM +0930, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 19:40 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yeah, it seems sometime in the past I lost my send_charset flag
setting.
So even though I was using UTF-8, mutt sent out
Content-Type: text/plain; charset
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 05:29:51PM -0700, Les wrote:
Profanity in any public context is always rude, and unnecessary, as well
as unclear. If you don't have the vocabulary to express your
intentions, then at least be polite and just say I don't understand
'the unclear part'.
hell is
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 03:04:29AM +, Robert wrote:
A reply to a the posting in this group caused me to stop, step back, and
consider a different respective. The reply pointed out that Fedora core
6 was supported until one month after the release of Fedora 8. With
releases scheduled
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 08:07:03PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
BTW it's an accented 'o' (ó).
that is what i see when you send it, but not when rui sends it.
Rui's message was encoded in ISO 8859-1. Patrick's was in UTF-8. Both reached
me unmangled. To see for yourself, press Ctrl+U and
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 06:29:42PM +, g wrote:
rui was using mutt for that one. either he has bee around a while, or
does not have his 'x' working.
Been around for a while, don't really trust Evolution, but use it at
work for meetings and stuff in a Windows centric desktop LAN, and lost a
So you want to view YouTube videos but you don't want to install
proprietary software? Namely that pesky Adobe Flash plugin, so well
known for being a multi-operating-system virus-platform?
There's a simple answer for you, just install Miró!
You can use your friendly GUI interface, or just open
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 06:51:19PM +, g wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
snip
So even though I was using UTF-8, mutt sent out
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NOT NICE :) sorry all, it's now fixed.
what i see
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 12:46:09PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
First, thank you for sharing this! :)
Second, do you know that this will work in x86_64 machine(s) running Fedora 9?
Unfortunately I don't have any x86_64 machine with Fedora, right now,
but since I have seen Miró playing you
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 01:38:32PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
I visted a site that requires flash and I get the following:
You need to install the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in to view all content
on this page. Do you want to download this plug-in now?
It's not a browser plugin, it's
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 05:51:55PM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
In firefox I can see and hear videos that are .mpg or.wmv but on youtube
I can see the video but not hear the sound.
How can this be fixed? This is f9 I am using.
You can view YouTube videos with Miró, thus not needing the
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:38:14AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are going to make this effort, why not just ditch the kernel
too and re-implement any missing drivers for the *BSDs or OpenSolaris
instead?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
But GNU utilities exist in *BSD camps as well, and the name GNU/*BSD is
not used or required. A page explains that since Linux Distributions
are more popular than *BSD distributions, it makes much more
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon July 28 2008 12:56:17 pm Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
RMS is the one requesting this
I am. He's not here. He's not even aware I'm doing this
here.
I too am
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:33:12PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: that old GNU/Linux argument
To: For users of Fedora fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 12:25 PM
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:41:36PM -0500, Les
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Do not decide for anyone! They should make the call. If they
decide to respond to something I or anybody else commented, it is
their call not yours. Or are you a puppet?
Your arguments are religious as well, and who is
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:16:48AM +0930, Tim wrote:
Marko Vojinovic:
But tell me, what is in principle The Single Most Important element
of the car? There is only one answer --- the engine.
Alexandre Oliva:
So, what remains to be justified is why you decided Linux is the
engine rather
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL
and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's
not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an
immoral
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:44PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to
participate in distributing these things as part of a work that
contains any GPL-covered material.
The or denounces your syllogism. The must
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:30:14PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You
can agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually
illegal. An exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 04:05:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Fedora claims to be a community all about freedom and rapid
innovation. I might as well help them understand what freedom means
when applied to software. Or at the very least offer them a second
opinion that takes more of
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:51PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch. That they
did not fully comply with the GPL?
(...)
Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros
to get the attention that they were getting.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:56PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
I guess you don't want to read. That kernel is called
Linux.
I'd be as pissed off as Linus if Stallman wanted to
call the kernel
GNU/Linux when the kernel is called Linux.
But Stallman is *not* doing that, he's
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Why is it a mistake?
All I said is that people should call it the way they want to, if
underneath the layers of software resides the linux kernel with/without
the GNU utilites. Like others have said on this list, they should
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:42:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.
With the GNU GPL you
45 matches
Mail list logo
