> Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make
> sure they perform them more consistently in future years.
Miss one word and it changes the entire tone... "and help make sure". They
have done a great job this year, though as a result of numerous changes to
the voluntee
Hey
On 11/30/07, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
(...)
>
> What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the future?
>
I can only think of asking for question much sooner or proposing some
topics under which to fill questions. But honestly, I don't know if
an
> What will you as a candidate do to make sure we avoid this mess in the
> future?
Work with the Membership Committee to document their practices and make sure
they perform them more consistently in future years.
During the current term, I have already made that you won't have to deal
with this
Hi,
As warned about earlier in this election (by someone with better
foresight than I have), when there isn't an organized call for
questions people will fire off zillions of them at random. This puts
an unreasonable burden on not only the candidates who feel obligated
to spend time responding to
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 20:30 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> I think the foundation could setup (orchestrate) meetings (or interops
> or however you want to call them) with the different teams. Gather the
> right people and put them together from time to times.
The foundation tries to do that, a
The patent clauses of GPLv3 are designed to make Microsoft give us all
patent safety thru its involvement in distribution of SuSe GNU/Linux,
if and when programs under GPLv3 and not under GPLv2 are included in
SuSe GNU/Linux.
(If they aren't included in SuSe GNU/Linux, they don't affect Novell
at
> And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
> particularly active in litigating on it.
> When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
> instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
> extending it to
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>
> We want to add support for Tracker as a search backend. Tracker
> is implemented in good old C, and it finally seems to be getting
> some uptake. It just takes some manpower.
>
With XESAM coming along, you wont need to have libtracke
> I just want to put this in perspective: the foundation has $200,000 in
> the bank, with guaranteed income of $100,000 a year approx. One employee
> costs at least $70,000 per year, and depending on the role up to
> $100,000 or more.
>
> Manpower is expensive :)
American manpower is expensive.
_
> And all of this could have been explained just as simply if the folks at
> boycottnovell.com had simply emailed us and asked for details, instead of
> posting unsubstantiated drivel.
Pretty much the crux of the issue with that website. Despite transparency
into the community that they would ne
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:44 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> > great concern.
> >
> > Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> > of the situ
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
> great concern.
>
> Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
> of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
> someone
On Nov 30, 2007 3:51 PM, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
> > > Software Movement in genera
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 20:28 +, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
> Hey
>
> On 11/30/07, Bastian, Waldo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
> > title:
> > > >"GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
> > > >
> > >
> > > If th
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
> > Software Movement in general?
>
> I think the most pressing thing is that the Foundation and our
> p
Hey
On 11/30/07, Bastian, Waldo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
> title:
> > >"GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
> > >
> >
> > If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
> > are violating t
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if
>elected vote to spend this money on important projects?
I just want to put this in perspective: the foundation has $200,000 in
the bank, with guaranteed income of $100,000 a year approx. One
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:07 -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> So what should the foundation be doing to address this issue in your
> opinion?
I think the foundation could setup (orchestrate) meetings (or interops
or however you want to call them) with the different teams. Gather the
right people and
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:48 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> Such action for the larger free software community is one example of
> the issue that my second question was intended to raise--namely,
> issues important to the community's health in general.
>
> Some candidates answered my question
So what should the foundation be doing to address this issue in your
opinion?
Cheers,
Waldo
Intel Corporation - Platform Software Engineering, UMG - Hillsboro,
Oregon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philip Van Hoof
Sent: Friday, November
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:52 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Anyway, my short answer to most of your mail is that every team / group
> is only mandated to do whatever the actual people doing the work like to
> do. No one knows better than me as the Pango maintainer that what Pango
> needs most.
Hi Richard,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised is not whether a
> person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might try to stop him,
> but we will not. The question is whether these programs are treated
> as part of GNOME, and to what extent other p
Hi Philip,
So you put the candidates under moral obligation to read your mail by
calling it question for candidates, and then call them insane for
reading it all the way down...
Not going to answer point by point. I'm also surprised that you have so
much time to write such a long mail for, I ass
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:48 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
> I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can
> ask
> politely.
>
> We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised
Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there,
(Reports are that they often do this privately to great effect.)
and we
will endeavour to make it absolutely clear that our participation does not
Also to not clutter mailboxes even more, I don't see how an optional
dependency on anything can be worse than the fact that GNOME optionally
compiles on MS Windows systems.
That GNOME can work on Windows has no effect on what GNOME does in a
GNU/Linux system. However, a dependency for
> The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the
> apparent "support" of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for
> free software.
Such a risk is always there. People who base their information on what
one side of a story says are doomed to hear everything
That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can ask
politely.
We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised is not whether a
person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might
Hi,
On 11/30/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
> particularly active in litigating on it.
>
> When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
> instead of "patents" only tends to confuse
Hi,
On 11/29/07, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007, à 18:03 -0500, Joe Shaw a écrit :
> > It's been frustrating over the past few years that GNOME hasn't taken
> > a firm position on the issue. I have personally felt very in limbo
> > because my application is in
> With Novell's customers getting exclusive patent protection for mono, it
> seems unfair for everyone else who have a heightened risk.
Thats something to take up with the FSF. The implementation of the GPLv3
is badly flawed by allowing that activity to continue. The original act
was Novell's, bu
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:41:24AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent
> > "support" of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software.
>
> Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there, and we
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 00:43 -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> > > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
> title:
> > >"GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
> > >
> >
> > If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
> > are violating the
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 00:43 -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> > > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
> title:
> > >"GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
> > >
> >
> > If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
> > are violating the
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 02:51 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> The questions:
>
> o. Given that the Foundation of GNOME has plenty of money, will you if
>elected vote to spend this money on important projects?
>
>Being mostly interested in mobile targets and GNOME Mobile, I c
> > o. What is your opinion on an examination that could carry the
title:
> >"GNOME Mobile certified software developer exam"
> >
>
> If the examination is offered by a third party, then I would say they
> are violating the trademark guidelines :).
> But if you suggest that GNOME via the Founda
The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on
libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any
promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps
for us.
Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are
patented. Indeed, t
And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
particularly active in litigating on it.
When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and o
38 matches
Mail list logo
