Hi!
> >>. A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure. For three years, I have
> >> lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
> >> Linux through public relations channels or legal means. They haven't
> >> yet,
> >> so I have been wrong so far.
> >>
> >
> >Teehee
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 19, 2002 09:04 am, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Under the GPL Having exclusive copyright just means that you can relicense
> later stuff if you want. I'm not clear on why FSF considers it so important
> but for Linux it just means that no
Hi!
> . A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure. For three years, I have
> lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
> Linux through public relations channels or legal means. They haven't yet,
> so I have been wrong so far.
What's problem with Microsof
> OTOH, having exclusive copyright means you can more successfully defend that
> copyright. If someone took a copy of the linux kernel and used it in a
> blatently non-GPL compliant way, who could sue?
At least one opinion is that everyone whose code is used would be entitled
to sue the offender
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:15:16AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Under the GPL Having exclusive copyright just means that you can relicense
> later stuff if you want. I'm not clear on why FSF considers it so important
> but for Linux it just means that nobody, not even Linus, can ever release
On February 19, 2002 09:04 am, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>. A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure. For three years, I have
> >> lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
> >> Linux through public relations channels or legal means.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> I agree, but we know some strange 'behaviour' of MS.
> They have a lot of lawers, they can make us a lot of trouble.
> (You will notice that there are no copyright statment on that file,
> only the name of authors).
>
> Remember the RMS (a flame
Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>. A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure. For three years, I have
>> lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
>> Linux through public relations channels or legal means. They haven't yet,
>> so I have been wrong so far.
>>
>
>
> . A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure. For three years, I have
> lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
> Linux through public relations channels or legal means. They haven't yet,
> so I have been wrong so far.
Teehee. I don't think you have a
Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Show us that you're able to write a 1 for 1 functional correspondance
> between CML1 and CML2 and propose that for inclusion into 2.5
Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This requirement is absurd. When someone designs a new VM, we
> don't demand that it c
Jeff Garzik replies to me:
mec> I believe that CML1 is rococo and I welcome a replacement. I think that
mec> leapfrog development is a good strategy here, just as it was for ALSA.
jg> I think this is a key mistake. See Al's message "Of Bundling, Dao,
jg> ...".
I am reading lkml from an archive
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> I'm the creator and one of the current administrators of the kbuild-devel
> mailing list. kbuild-devel is not an instrument of "cronyism" or
> "secret meetings".
[reshuffle the message a bit]
> (I have to say, reluctantly, that I'm personally not happy with the
I'm the creator and one of the current administrators of the kbuild-devel
mailing list. kbuild-devel is not an instrument of "cronyism" or
"secret meetings".
I think it's reasonable and scalable for kernel subsystems to have their
own mailing lists. And I think it's reasonable to expect people
13 matches
Mail list logo
