I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously!
I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating
customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of
I assumed FreeBSD team are OK and would fit in this 2% or even those 0.2%
am i wrong?
_
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:24:57AM -0500, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
> > effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
> > corporate users, as well as non-
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:16:09PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
> > > commercial system.
> > >
> > > REALLY i would not see a problem to pa
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:28:17AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> >biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy
> >the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it what
> >it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned.
>
> I am
> From woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl Fri Jun 22 09:26:33 2012
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:25:55 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Robert Bonomi
> cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > Because it doesn't address an of the
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
>
>
> There actually is/was a closed-source BSD (BSDI), and there is Mac OS X, with
> BSD under the covers.
BSDi sold source-code licenses. I was an early-adopter, and I _have_ one.
The vast majority of the code was taken directly from BSD 4.4 Lite, and
the source-code
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:25:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good.
Why are you just saying things you know isn't true?
Fast code is not guaranteed to be correct code.
___
freebsd-ques
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate "bad code",
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good.
Why are you just saying things yo
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate "bad code",
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good. Why
are you just saying things you know isn't true?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way
> effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have
> corporate users, as well as non-corporate users. Just as it must
> reasonably see to the needs of the i
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:46:15 2012
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:37:48 -0500
> From: Mark Felder
> Cc: Wojciech Puchar
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:44:17 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:36:03 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> >>
> >> sources please!
> >
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:39:02 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: "Robison, Dave"
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > Because there's no rea
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 12:37:00 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Mark Felder
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> z> wrote:
> >
> >> p
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>
> >> "We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
> they are not.
> programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
You don't know what you don't know, trollboi.
Anyt
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into
> > commercial system.
> >
> > REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence.
>
> I would see a problem with that -- not bec
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:07:49 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:06:12 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Wojciech Puchar
> To: Michel Talon
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions , kpn...@pobox.com
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> > for commercial sponsors of Free
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
>
>> programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
>
> This has not been decided in court yet.
In which court not? Of which jurisdiction?
Even if one jurisdiction says so
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
> >If FreeBSD appears
> >as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
> >will be good
>
> I think any project that size is
On Friday 22 June 2012 07:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
>
>
> I want to whish all a very mery Midsummer's Eve and Midsummer's Day
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer#Sweden
I appreciate the sentiment but it's midwinter here ;)
Jonathan
___
freebsd-q
I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is
worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The
true.
biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy
the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it wha
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 12:04:35 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> 2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
> > On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> >> 2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
> >>> we have feelings too!!!
> >>
> >> Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just s
2012-06-22 06:50, Erich Dollansky skrev:
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Hi,
On Friday 22 June 2012 11:18:01 Bernt Hansson wrote:
> 2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
> > we have feelings too!!!
>
> Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
>
do not forget the feelings regarding the devil.
Erich
_
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
> >
> >Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
>
> Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
>
> Polit
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
> >If FreeBSD appears
> >as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
> >will be good
>
> I think any project that size is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> Le 21 juin 2012 à 03:52, kpn...@pobox.com a écrit :
> >
> >
> > All of this may seem stupid to a reasonable person outside of law. I'll
> > agree
> > that it probably does look stupid. But it is also the reality of the legal
> > syst
2012-06-21 10:59, fred.mor...@gmail.com skrev:
we have feelings too!!!
Ouch! Another "feeling" person. Can't you just stop this feeling stuff.
/sarcasm off
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free
2012-06-21 19:33, Mark Felder skrev:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:30:40 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:46AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Snippet from Antonio Olivares :
> >
> > I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
> > GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
> > giving back as the license requires. There was
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:25:22AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
>
> i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of
> program as an employer in software company.
There are basically four circumstances that might apply he
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:40 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
> decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
>
> As you've already been told it's not English it's Law
I assume that there's not just one ca
On 6/21/12 10:30 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Logical fallacy -- looking for a non-existence proof.
___
freebsd-questions
On Jun 21, 2012 11:23 AM, "Wojciech Puchar"
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
>> is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules
out using
>> proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC fu
So, has anyone compared the performance of clang vs gcc compiled in daily use--
for example as a server? Anyone can cherry pick a couple of binaries, but how
important is this for the performance of FreeBSD world?
not big, as with almost any compiler. Most workload are dominated by cache
misse
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Stas Verberkt wrote:
> Mark Felder schreef op 21-06-2012 19:28:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
>>
>>
>> This has not been decided in court yet.
>>
> Additionally, th
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for non-GPL
executables
is limited to what hey call "eligible compilation processes", what rules out
using
proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality with
non-GPL
tooling and extensions.
Please note th
Mark Felder schreef op 21-06-2012 19:28:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for
non-GPL executables
is limi
On 6/21/12 10:36 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a
Judge decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official
letter to GNU "Fr
On 06/21/2012 10:30, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
>>
>> Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
>
> Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
>
> Politics won.
>
Excellent. W
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:36:03 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU "Free" Software Foundation asking for just that case?
There needs to be a lawsuit and lawyers and judges need to be involved.
You can't just ask the
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU "Free" Software Foundation asking for just that
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:30:40 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
Google "GPLv3 court case". There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license
z> wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe,
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
Politics won.
___
freebsd-questions@freeb
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries are encumbered.
you mean libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++?
scanned /bin and /usr/bin and few programs do link it - all are C++
written.
None IMHO are needed in closed-source system really
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:16:31 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
On 06/21/2012 10:08, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
>> maintenance staff and the money to pay for them comes from those
>> commercial users. If FreeBSD cannot maintain the critical mass to
>> continue, it will not continue.
>
> but why
On 6/21/12 10:16 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a
GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries are encumbered.
"We put clang because sponsors wanted it."
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
On 6/21/12 10:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument
may have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD
itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and t
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may
have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and maintenance
staff and the money to pay for them comes from those com
On 6/21/12 1:40 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may have a
merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and
maintenance staff and the m
wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
request.
Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who want to
better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to Clang.
i would like to hear this. but only in C compiler context.
i understand t
Snippet from Antonio Olivares :
> I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
> GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
> giving back as the license requires. There was little to no way to
> enforce the license, he decided to move to other li
Because of FreeBSD lists being mainly unmoderated and open to posting without
subscription, I notice some outright spams that slip through the list filters.
I believe (could possibly be wrong) that the lists have spam filters in place.
it must have and well done. FreeBSD list is for sure more
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If
FreeBSD appears
as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
will be good
I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be.
I just don't like that it isn't stated ope
from Stephen Cook :
> No, this is unusual. But also remember that most of these lists are not
> just unmoderated but open to posting without subscription. Then it
> becomes kind of amazing at how little flaming and trolling there is.
> That's not an accident, the admins work hard to limit abuse.
And I just want to add I'm a gay Marxist atheist and I represent the
accusations leveled in that other post...we have feelings too!!!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscrib
Le 21 juin 2012 à 03:52, kpn...@pobox.com a écrit :
>
> All of this may seem stupid to a reasonable person outside of law. I'll agree
> that it probably does look stupid. But it is also the reality of the legal
> systems we must live with today.
I can only praise kpneal for this very well argu
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 20 17:37:45 2012
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:33:35 +0200
> From: Polytropon
> To: Wojciech Puchar
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions ,
> Antonio Olivares
> Subject: Re: Why Clang
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:22 +0
Hi Polytropon, cc questions@
(No CC Wojciech P. as my local filters drop text from him )
> To translate this to a programmer's job:
>
> You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
> deliver the program. That's what you are paid for. Still
> the source code is yours (as _you_ are the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:22 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
>
> i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
> an employer in software company.
Sorry, I misread the situation.
In this case I assume
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all
without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL, then
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:57:17 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> from what i know (still, possibly incorrent) if i am hired as a programmer
> and write a program, this program belong to the company and i couldn't use
> it everywhere at least officially.
That is highly debatable and mostly sub
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really
own this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
When you license something, you still own the copyright. You can then
release it under other licenses as well, and for versions you have
modified you can release
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
Releasing something as GPL does not mean you give up
copyright. If I understood this whole thing correctly,
I'm not a lawyer but i repeat what i've read time ago,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
> >GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
>
> isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really
> own this and e
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:06:31 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
> > GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
>
> isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
> this a
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
This just keeps going on...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:44:50PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3
> >licensed libc.
> FreeBSD doesn't use GNU libc. am i missing something?
Yes. Users are not identical to the FreeBSD base system.
--
Chad Perrin [ original conte
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:45:16AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>>but not to be turned into closed source products.
> >>
> >>What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
> >>"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
> >>your motherfucking
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3
>> licensed libc.
>
> FreeBSD doesn't use GNU libc. am i missing something?
>
No they don't :)
It is good that they don't. Why? Because of the changes from GPLv2
to GPLv3
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:42:34 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
Politics won over performance and quality. sad.
Performing compiler does not mean quality codebase.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
licensed gcc or b) A maintained and current GPLv3 gcc with GPLv3
licensed libc.
FreeBSD doesn't use GNU libc. am i missing something?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscri
it is only a proof that it was decided to put it as FreeBSD default
compiler.
Everything is said, explained and discusse why this decision is made.. So
Explanation about "the decision was already made" isn't explanation.
but i don't require any explanation. actually i don't require anything.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>> Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
>>> but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
>>> mailing list at all.
>>
>> Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is
>> the first one.
>
>
> because
They could be reduced by a combo. of eg:
- forcible unsub, & black list,
- block of anon. remailer domains
- making this list "subscribtion required before posting".
(which would make it harder for newbies fresh to
FreeBSD, but we need some
Polytropon wrote:
> I assume it's just an aspect of "still being too young" in
> regards of missing the difference between freedom and
> anarchy: the right to extend one's freedom is limited
> as soon as it limits the freedom of others. Maybe another
> aspect is the lack of discussion culture and t
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Stephen Cook wrote:
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I
realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire, but others in
the thread (and other unrelated threads recently) are a FAR CRY from the
technical support and disc
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
>>> but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
>>> mailing list at all.
>>>
>> Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this i
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 12:59:51 Stephen Cook wrote:
>> On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> [snip childish invective]
>
>> I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this
>> flame-y? I realize
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 12:59:51 Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
[snip childish invective]
> I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this
> flame-y? I realize that this particular post might be trolling / satire
No, they are
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is the
first one.
because such situation like now never happened - changing C compiler to
much worse bec
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar articulated:
> > A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would
> > seem to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness
> > of FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six
> > or more
>
On 20.06.2012 13:45, Jakub Lach wrote:
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about sys
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
or rather - discussion is a rule :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would seem
to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness of
FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six or more
strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned.
By the way Fred, please don't "T
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I
no. it is temporary.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-que
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:04:47 +0200
Fred Morcos articulated:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook
> wrote:
> > On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
> >>
> >> No, it is not, except perhaps by lyin
I am also a newcomer and I agree with Stephen. But I guess the only
way is to simply ignore those who make such statements. I don't see
much benefit in arguing or reasoning with them.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
On 6/19/2012 4:06 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
BSDL in opposite is often criticized a "rape me license".
No, it is not, except perhaps by lying atheist Marxist bastards and his
religious adherents.
Please don't use "atheist" as a derogatory term. There are plenty of
capitalistic
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under
this license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making
their own OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper
for example. It would be wise to listen to their point of view on G
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their own
OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for example. It
would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.
not really un
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should
be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the
program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understa
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway DragonFly
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>>
>>> Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
>> often called a "viral license". Software linking against v3
>> libraries and so maybe programs com
but not to be turned into closed source products.
What a lying sonofabitch. That is not called freedom. That is called
"forcible, viral open source". I think we can all see the difference. Open
your motherfucking eyes, communist goofball...
Give him a break. His heart is in the right place, t
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
