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
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
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 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
://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
I've got a version stripped off of all the voting-by-e-mail aspects,
which you might be interested in. Search for 'civs' in my home page
(URL in the .sig).
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED
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
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
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
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
=450491
--
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
unknowingly inherited from Ubuntu. Did
this cause gNewSense to be removed? No, because they proceeded to
remove it as soon as they could, according to their stated policy.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board
.
Thanks,
--
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 Jul 13, 2008, Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
With the current policies, more and more non-Free Software is being
welcomed into Fedora.
You're intentionally omitting one detail: all that non-Free software
isn't software which runs
of that. If even Microsoft can get away with it,
why do we have to help unethical vendors force this garbage onto *all*
of our users?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
answering a user's question.
Thank you for your understanding.
I wish I could reciprocate :-)
--
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
running on top of the kernel Linux.
For them, the kernel is irrelevant.
Next frequently raised fallacious objections?
--
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
perceive here is probably just laziness
of publishing announcements about software that has long been
available. BLAG 7 was old, indeed, and it's a shame it was still
regarded as the latest stable release in spite of the (as of
yesterday) unannounced BLAG 8 and 9.
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jul 14, 2008, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?
Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within
, they may call it GNU/Linux (or
anything else they choose ;). Asking for anything else to be called
GNU/Linux is pure hubris.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#gnudist
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA
On Jul 15, 2008, Joe Klemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, has the FSF been as vocal about GNU/FreeBSD?
Of course not. FreeBSD is a complete operating system on its own, it
was never just a kernel combined with the GNU Operating System.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
.
[...] Happy hacking.
/quote
'nuff said?
--
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
to the combination of the substrate GNU with a the
piece that, combined with it, made the combination a complete
operating system, by the name of this smaller piece?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member
underneath is still MS-Windows. Why should a different
criterium be applied to GNU+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
back in mid 1980's because sendmail was Free
Software, and so the other pieces were designed to just use 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
with the
people who did just that to the GNU operating system, when they
started calling it Linux, would you?
--
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
thought it had become clear that GPL didn't impose any such
restrictions, it was copyright law that did. I refuse to be dragged
into another discussion about that with you.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA
for 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
fedora-list
of license incompatibility, and their TCP/IP stacks
could (and still can) interoperate.
So there... That implementation made life easier for all those OS
vendors who didn't want to respect their customers' freedoms, but
didn't help much other communities who did.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jul 16, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'm not the one trying to dictate the name used for other people's
software. I think it is wrong.
I'm happy you agree it's wrong. This means you wouldn't side with the
people who did just that to the GNU
On Jul 16, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It was GNU. GNU, as a system, pre-dates Linux.
As a system of what?
An operating system, whose kernel was still under development. And,
like every other component of the GNU Operating System, still
On Jul 17, 2008, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't go 'hey, ma, look this book I wrote' when what you wrote
was only the preface.
Likewise, you can't go hey, world, look at this operating system I
wrote when all what wrote was only the C
UNIX 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-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
, and we might very well find out we wouldn't have any Free
operating system to use. Be skeptic as much as you want, but he has
already succeeded once at something that many thought impossible.
But it's not going to change.
Everything eventually changes.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
to :-)
The c library isn't unique to unix by design.
I don't understand what you're trying to communicate here, there are
several different possible interpretations. Please expand or use
different words?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
, for triple
damages which would be millions and the end of FreeBSD.
Err... Is there any reason NetApp would have to wait for the end of
the lawsuit with Sun to sue FreeBSD out of existence?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
On Jul 19, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one of the authors of the GPL Alexandre Oliva.
FTR, I don't regard myself as one of the authors of GPLv3. Although I
have participated in the process to some extent, and contributed a few
ideas that ended up in the final version, I
, once you download it, will you please burn a CD for me
and send it to me? Given your statement, I'd be surprised if you were
to charge me anything for it.
:-P
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member
On Jul 18, 2008, Patrick O'Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However common sense kicks in: if you replace or remove any single
component of the large collection of programs that together amount to
an operating
, but to this other fellow human
being.
This is the nature of 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
copyright law.
--
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
this is one of those cases of
not being able to have a cake and eat it too. Or either :-)
--
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
,
and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
freedom.
--
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
licenses?
--
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
is by claiming to not be a derived work, and if
it's not a derived work, no copyright license (!= contract) can
possibly lay any claim on it.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! = http
say screw the law of the land where the company which
arguably does more for Free/Open Source Software is based is just,
well, childish.
Hey, hey, easy! Isn't 'fsck' the program used to fix major problems
that sometimes show up? :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
favorable to a software distributor
defendant? ATT vs Microsoft, Supreme Court, IIRC.
--
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
it or not is irrelevant.
You can do whatever you want with the code, just not release it to
anyone and if you do, you have to provide the source code?
Is that correct?
This pretty much sums up GPLv2. GPLv3 is has further requirements in
some details, and is more lax in others.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
the corresponding
sources.
Would you please notify the copyright holders? They're the only ones
with legal standing to do anything about it and have their wish,
encoded in the GPL, respected.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED
. I thought I'd try
his implied offer and hope he'd see how bizarre his surprise was.
--
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
is not welcome.
:-D
(I'm not serious, but I wonder how people who've shouted SHUT UP to me
in other threads would react seeing themselves in a mirror like this
:-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board
), but I was really just
testing your consistency of opinion :-)
I would do that myself if I knew where to get it.
You do know that, you just don't want to pay for it :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA
On Jul 19, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The core of the distribution is the kernel, called Linux.
What about GNU *core*utils? :-P :-D
And then, again, what if you remove Linux, install kFreeBSD or
OpenSolaris in its stead, rebuild glibc to export
involving works that are allegedly not derived works.
--
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
an outcome you'd be interested in,
and you wouldn't be so selfish as to wanting that kind of power only
to you, so there's some inconsistency in your stance.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé
On Jul 20, 2008, Timothy Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That people made this silly and childish mistake of renaming the GNU
operating system to Linux is unfair *and* it works against the very
evangelization you claim to support.
There is no such thing as the GNU
about UNIX and UNIX-like
--
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
of it isn't even GPL :(.
This sentence may be interpreted in several different ways. Would you
please elaborate on what you meant to communicate by adding it, so
that I can tell whether or not it's based on a very common
misunderstanding?
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
On Jul 20, 2008, Thomas Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 02:00 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Apache, sendmail, bind and linux are not operating systems. They have
never been.
I've never said they were.
You proposed and rejected the idea of referring to the operating
On Jul 20, 2008, Patrick O'Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 17:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, Patrick O'Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Operating System - kernel = Operating System?
[...]
Incidentally, this is exactly what happened
On Jul 20, 2008, Rahul Sundaram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If Linux developers had gone down that path, they'd
They haven't done anything like this.
IIRC that 'd stands for would, meaning the whole consequent is
conditioned on the antecedent. Isn't that so
into account as well. Your call.
--
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
-GPL' you mean AGPL, then yes. Otherwise, no, it's not
LGPL. Some other form of license compatibility is required for the
whole work to be distributable and thus offerable for public execution
over a computer network.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe
mechanical.
However, this says nothing as to whether or not the loaded module was
a derived work. AFAIK the legal facts used in this determination are
independent of whether it is loaded, but IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
system didn't make much sense because of
TeX.
I'll let you happily argue the toss until the cows come home, but GNU
is in itself not an operating system.
So how do you refer to a full operating system minus a kernel? Say,
GNU-Hurd, or [GNU/]Linux-Linux?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
there are more important parts of the car
that took far more work to build, such as the motor.
There's a reason why custom racing cars (say Formula 1) are most often
identified not only by the pilot's name, but also by the team, the
motor and the tires.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jul 20, 2008, Matthew Saltzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 16:15 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So, let's see, just because you're prohibited from using software for
stealing money from others' bank accounts, and you could decide to
change any piece of software to do just
for the present conversation.
--
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
permissive
license, so why would she bother to enforce a less permissive license,
even if she could? But then, IANAL.
--
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
% of the distro unwilling to give unfair naming rights.
Naming it after 2% is fair, while naming it after 15% isn't. Care to
explain the rationale behind this conclusion?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board
and promoting the software that happens to be Free (and OSS).
Depending on whether you're guided by FS or OSS values, you'll tend to
consistently choose one in detriment of the other.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org
; 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
us harm, when the
alternative won't bring harm to anyone and most people don't care one
way or another?
--
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
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.
Can you back this up? All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.
I thought you had just agreed
this driving force you speak
of.
Odd, eh?
So it's not so much wanting to include the names of all the more
attractive applications in the distribution name as not seeing any
reason to glorify minor components
Heh. I can't even tell what side you're arguing for any more :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva
.
Can we drop this now?
Will you help us?
--
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
really like to give them credit,
because we're really not like them, but the trademark terms are too
cumbersome. Or we can go the Linux(R) is a registered trademark
dance.
Who's making demands and who's just requesting, you think?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free
On Jul 21, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Alexandre Oliva
So, if someone said I'm a Linux developer, you'd immediately know
that the person:
.. wrote some code that runs on the Linux OS.
And you're not the least concerned that Eric Paul Allman, Theo de
Raadt, and Richard M. Stallman
.
--
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
the same arguments here.
--
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
be
related, but they're not the same.
--
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
On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
It is a problem the GPL creates.
That's a red herring
on several operating systems, including GNU/Linux.
It doesn't run just on Linux, though.
RMS said they needed a kernel then clearly gnu products
What's with this obsession with products? What GNU products are you
talking about? We're just talking about software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
recent posting
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/2008-07-21-gnu+linux
Please take the time to look at other postings in this thread and to
read the FAQ linked from there, to avoid even more duplication.
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software
probably back to the silliness of kill-filing me. But if you
read this, please do.
OSS no. Something I imagine RMS is not too worried about ?
Why stop at the speculation? Go ahead, ask him, then let us know.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software
that are part of the operating system and those that
aren't, and interfaces them with the kernel when needed.
--
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
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
