Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:28 +0200:
>
>>>There is a difference between assembling a system, and developing
>>>its components. The FSF certainly does not develop X11.
>
>>> Neither does the FSF develop FTP
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:28 +0200:
>>There is a difference between assembling a system, and developing
>>its components. The FSF certainly does not develop X11.
>> Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, I fail
>> to see what p
ROFL. Hey ams, I'm your fan.
(sorry group just couldn't resist)
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
>These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
>
>
> And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system?
> Amazing.
Of course a compilation consists of parts.
And non-compi
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
>
>
> And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system?
> Amazing.
Indeed, another strawmen.
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate
> >> > and independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and t
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate
>> > and independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are
>> > even under different licen
>> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according
>> to you?
>
> Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
Depends on what you call "Linux". A typical GNU/Linux distribution
certainly is (Alfred's opinion notwithstanding).
You have no understanding of m
> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
Everything according to you is a compilation. But the question was to
David, not you.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
> >> >
> >
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
>> >
>> > Linux is a compilation according to copyr
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> > [...]
> >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
> >
> > Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
>
> Depends on what you call "Linux". A typic
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
> >> the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
> >> executables, and that exceeds mere aggreg
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> [...]
>> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
>
> Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
Depends on what you call "Linux". A typical GNU/Linux distribution
certainly is (Alf
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
>> the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
>> executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
>> however, is l
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
regards.
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
> the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
> executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
> however, is licensed under the LGPL.
Function calls have no impact
These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system?
Amazing.
> Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I
> guess it
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X,
>> isn't developed by the FSF.
>
>Neither are the FTP clients.
>
> So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system?
> Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU in
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>No. GNU is the system that the GNU project is putting together.
>
> No? So Emacs isn't part of the GNU system? Do you mean that Richard
> never ever _really_ intended Emacs to be part of GNU system? And that
> it was an evil
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>No. GNU is the system that the GNU project is putting together.
>
> No? So Emacs isn't part of the GNU system? Do you mean that Richard
> never ever _really_ intended Emacs to be part of GNU system? And that
> it was an evil plot to make you ac
> FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X,
> isn't developed by the FSF.
Neither are the FTP clients.
So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system?
Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU inetutils also provides part of the GNU
system?
>There
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The X Windows system consists of an X server and client libraries
>communicating via a network transparent protocol.
>
> The X window system is a protocol, like FTP. Maybe you mean XFree86
> or X.Org? A X window system implementation is inf
The X Windows system consists of an X server and client libraries
communicating via a network transparent protocol.
The X window system is a protocol, like FTP. Maybe you mean XFree86
or X.Org? A X window system implementation is infact part of the GNU
system; which I do not know since non
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by
>> the FSF.
>
>Since when is X11 developed by the FSF?
>
> What does a protocol have to do with this?
You are making a spectacle of yourself again. The X Windows sys
No. GNU is the system that the GNU project is putting together.
No? So Emacs isn't part of the GNU system? Do you mean that Richard
never ever _really_ intended Emacs to be part of GNU system? And that
it was an evil plot to make you act in this absurd way?
Parts of this system are actual
> GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by
> the FSF.
Since when is X11 developed by the FSF?
What does a protocol have to do with this?
You are making a spectacle of yourself again. There is no need to
contradict _everything_ Alexander says.
>From th
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is a operating
>> system.
>
>Well, whatever it is, it isn't Unix!
>
> :-)
>
>GNU is more than an operating system - Emacs, for example, is part
>of GNU, though it's definitely not
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Guh-NÜ-slash-Hurd is also a compilation.
>
> GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by
> the FSF.
Since when is X11 developed by the FSF? You are making a spectacle of
yourself again. There is no need to contradict _ev
> GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is a operating
> system.
Well, whatever it is, it isn't Unix!
:-)
GNU is more than an operating system - Emacs, for example, is part
of GNU, though it's definitely not part of an OS, and there are
LOTS of GNU programs like that.
Guh-NÜ-slash-Hurd is also a compilation.
GNU isn't, it is a operating system, a single entity, developed by the
FSF.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> Well, whatever it is, it isn't Unix! GNU is more than an operating
> system - Emacs, for example, is part of GNU, though it's definitely not
> part of an OS, and there are LOTS of GNU programs like that. This is the
> "mere aggregation" that the GPL talks about - lo
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 14:40:20 +0200
(CEST):
>I think you're misunderstanding what "GNU" is - it isn't a single
>program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
>useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell. And also Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Red Hat
>
>https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
>
>"The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law."
>
>and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of others.
>
> I'm talking about the G
Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Novell. And also Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of Red Hat
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
"The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law."
and Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux of others.
I'm talking about the GNU system, not a variant of it. I'm talking
abo
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>>I think you're misunderstanding what "GNU" is - it isn't a single
>>program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
>>useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
>>
>> GNU isn't a compilation of
>I think you're misunderstanding what "GNU" is - it isn't a single
>program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
>useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
>
> GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is a operating sy
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>I think you're misunderstanding what "GNU" is - it isn't a single
>program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
>useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
>
> GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is
I think you're misunderstanding what "GNU" is - it isn't a single
program, or a tightly coupled suite. It's a compilation of lots of
useful programs, which system builders can pick and choose from.
GNU isn't a compilation of programs either. It is a operating system.
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 16 May 2006 21:49:40 -0700:
> What is the current status of GPL v3?
Under discussion, I think.
> I read a few months ago that Linux kernel will not go GPL v3. What
> will happen then?
It will stay with GPL 2, and the world won't come to an end, and mo
What is the current status of GPL v3?
See the FSF website, they have all the details about the GPL v3.
I read a few months ago that Linux kernel will not go GPL v3.
Linux cannot, ever, change its license without getting all copyright
holders to agree, a task which is basically impossible
What is the current status of GPL v3? I read a few months ago that
Linux kernel will not go GPL v3. What will happen then? Will GNU bind
with another kernel? Thanks.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
42 matches
Mail list logo
