On 09/24/2012 05:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
And pigs might fly :-)
Perhaps; pigs cannot fly, but penguins can fly! :-P Unless, you didn't
see this already :
http://laughingsquid.com/flying-penguins-documentary-prank-on-bbc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins
Have fun! ;-)
On 09/24/2012 05:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
And pigs might fly :-)
Perhaps; pigs cannot fly, but penguins can fly! :-P Unless, you didn't
see this already :
http://laughingsquid.com/flying-penguins-documentary-prank-on-bbc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins
Have fun! ;-)
o, how to
track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Tarkan Erimer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the
this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Tarkan Erimer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
well... try to get the oops message out; for many causes of crash that's a good
way to find out what happened...
(not always, but it allows us to find patterns if nothing else)
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the oops message. Because when this
behavior happens, the
o, how to
track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Tarkan Erimer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Tarkan Erimer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
well... try to get the oops message out; for many causes of crash that's a good
way to find out what happened...
(not always, but it allows us to find patterns if nothing else)
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the oops message. Because when this
behavior happens, the
subscribe linux-kernel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
subscribe linux-kernel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response:
I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together,
we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of
holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the
sincerity of the offer, I invite
Hi Linus,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun
Hi Linus,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response:
I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together,
we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of
holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the
sincerity of the offer, I invite
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
discussed their horrible previous Java license.
Thanks for making things more clear :-
Ingo Molnar wrote:
You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
"example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
though.
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
it. [...]
actually, what you said was this:
" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris v
Ingo Molnar wrote:
if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
Ingo
I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris
Community nor
Al Viro wrote:
Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
However, what
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>>
>> >> > And maybe another questions sho
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they d
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License the
OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
owner can
hold
Al Viro wrote:
Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
However, what
Ingo Molnar wrote:
if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
Ingo
I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris
Community nor
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
it. [...]
actually, what you said was this:
I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
though.
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license
Ingo Molnar wrote:
You might as well have said the moon is made out of cheese and i'd not
have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
example you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
discussed their horrible previous Java license.
Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
owner can
>> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
From: Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09
Hi Neil,
Neil Brown wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
that if it is decided to upgrade
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is
Hi David,
David Schwartz wrote:
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is
Hi David,
David Schwartz wrote:
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is
Hi Neil,
Neil Brown wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
that if it is decided to upgrade
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
From: Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
owner can
hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
copyright still should
and
suggestions about this idea ?
Regards,
Tarkan Erimer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
and
suggestions about this idea ?
Regards,
Tarkan Erimer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
42 matches
Mail list logo
