Hello,
I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205tid=150
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
licensed under
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote:
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo
right?
The problem there is with
Hi,
On 6/28/06, Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205tid=150
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote:
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:47, Mivz wrote:
So that would not be when a stage 3 install cd for the Overlay tree is
published? Because that cd contains binary precomplied packages.
Well, IANAL and as Stuart said the last word is up to trustees, but from my
understanding, as long as the overlay
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:21:45 +0200
Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a
none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects
which is licensed under de GPL-2?
If your project is licensed under the GPL-2, you have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
Very free. There are many project
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:28:42PM +0200, Mivz wrote:
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
*plonk*
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 16:28, Mivz wrote:
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
There is nothing preventing you from just publishing a patch with your name.
The problem arises only if you
On 6/28/06, Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
With the GPL v2, you don't need a server at all. You're perfectly
entitled to distribute the code on DVD (for example),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey everybody.
Bugday is moving closer, and we would like to see you on Saturday 1. of
July.
We are celebrating that it once again is the first saturday of the
month. We will be serving virtual cookies to everybody who shows up :-)
So please, show
Mivz mivz at alpha.spugium.net writes:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
This is free as in *freedom*. GPL says that you cannot
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
Very free. There are many project sites that will host your content
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary
download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL
license and just put some more links to the source code?
It's like the (old?/new?) Decalogue: You shall not steal.
But if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
Very
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
Very free.
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
Very free. There are many project
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:42:47 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide
| is the patches.
Careful with that. The GNU people say otherwise.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient
--
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own
Mike Doty wrote:
Then you miss the entire point of GPL. You own your code, but if you
derive it from something that is GPL, then you must comply with the GPL.
The GPL exists to protect the author from what you're trying to do.
Your statement also goes against the whole concept of free
Mivz wrote:
You called me selfish, childish
Whoever complains about the distribution rules from GPL after using
GPL'd source/stuff is...
and a M$ lover...
Never said.
Well... I'm a squatter, I try to live anarchistic and I do not prejudge
people. And if I disagree... I certainly do not
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
the patches.
Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and
this is the most important thing on that article.
But there's a simple way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
That other people don't have a 9 line counting footer and are not
official Gentoo developers does not say they are so much different from
you or stupid.
You called me selfish, childish and a M$ lover...
Well... I'm a squatter, I try
Mivz mivz at alpha.spugium.net writes:
But if your modification is on top of the Gentoo system and your build
your own Live cd, like Kororaa, do you have to provide all the sources
of all the program's on the live cd?
Well, if you *modify* programs that you want to put on said live cd (like
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:55:47 -0500 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Perhaps you should take another English class before you make a bigger
| fool out of yourself than you just did.
I don't think Gentoo developers should be making those kinds of
comments towards users, no matter how much they
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200
Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a
binary download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with
the GPL license and just put some more links to the source code?
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
You don't have to do this
for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case you're a
third party (like a courier, or the postman) and can can simply refer
back to Gentoo.
According to the FSF you need to provide the
Mivz [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200:
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary
download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL
license and just put
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
the patches.
Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and
this is the most important thing on that
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 21:48 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
the patches.
Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:20:00 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
You don't have to do this
for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case
you're a third party (like a courier, or the postman) and
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:02 +0200
Raphael Marichez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week,
every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems
(embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old
On Sunday 25 June 2006 01:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
* Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
(and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
* Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
(and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable.
- Remove from the examples
34 matches
Mail list logo
