On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say relicensing I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.
That's a useful distinction, but I suggest you find a different
On Friday 14 December 2007 21:49:23 Richard Stallman wrote:
When speaking privately to someone I know is not likely to install
non-free software, that is true. I can say to him, You could use
OpenBSD, as long as you take care, if you use the ports system, to
check that the programs you
On Dec 14, 2007 3:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
it? If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
should be remove from gNewSense. On the other hand, if it is a
general purpose feature and
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:22 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
unethical so I won't either.
When you buy a copy of a non-free
Just buy a 4.2 CD and tape it to the front. Then it can't be
ethically opened. The thought of the MIT bomb squad taking an air cannon
to a 70 page essay on bullshit is too good not to have even the remotest
possibility of it happening ;)
-Bob
* Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.
I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
It is much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many
people into surrendering their freedom.
So how do you do it?
I mean there is no way that I am aware of that would enable you to send
this message without using some non-free code. Do you use some sort of
special wooden
Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like
including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of interesting
links in your web site. I am against censorship, so I do not believe
in closing down those neofascist web sites. But I won't refer people
to them.
This is illegal. Repeating it over and over again will not make it so.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
Richard Stallman wrote:
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say relicensing I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:19PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's
natural to say that P is included in the ports system. You are
interpreting the word included in a very literal sense, but that's
not the only normal usage of
If you can't or won't recommend anything
everything goes to Microsoft.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Paul de Weerd
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re:
So have you sent these types of unrecommendations to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?
I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people
were making inaccurate statements about my
On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I don't
criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
to do things with non-free software.
Except in the case of the OpenBSD ports system.
This last week, Richard has only criticized OpenBSD.
They seem to be pretty new,
what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
Nothing! For many years there was no system distribution I
could recommend to the public, and that is what I
I've had a p2015dn since march of this year and it prints ps just fine
via lpd.
$ cat /etc/printcap
lp|lj-p2015:\
:rm=192.168.10.140:\
:lp=:\
:rp=raw:\
:if=/usr/libexec/lpr/lpf:\
Perhaps your filter /usr/libexec/lpr/lpf is solving the problems that
others
bofh wrote:
Heh. I think we're having far too much fun in the other threads. I
have a serious question. I'm a mangler in a largish company. We have
developers, and contractors. No coding standards and all that, so,
things are... messy.
I do *NOT* speak for the developers (flames
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
making your original comments, and starting this thread?
That would be the deciding factor for me.
Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a
This is alt.humor isn't it? Or has my filesystem crashed again.
Anyway I am remembering these from over 30 years ago:
1. Professional Idiot- a man is interviewed who claims to be a
professional idiot. They ask him some questions and
then they show him in bed with 2 beautiful women. They ask
I don't think relicense means what you think it does.
If I were to relicense emacs under a Microsoft license that would mean ...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Daniel
Richard Stallman wrote:
When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and
with your freedom. You apparently don't assign much value to the
freedom that you would give up.
I really didn't expect to get involved in this, but if I were to buy a
copy of Hy-Tek's Meet Manager
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the
You could put your money where you mouth is and leave the united states
where people are selling and buying software legaly. You can't enforce your
left wing idealistic agenda. Capitalism drives a lot of things.. Including
the hardware your running. Why don't you set up a tent outside of TI or
The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and
install any program. (I don't know if it does.) If so, I have
nothing against that. But it certainly contains specific recipes for
installing specific non-free programs. That's what I object to.
I believe that what you
On Dec 14, 2007, at 5:44 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:18 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
snip
Just as an example most advertisers choose not to name their
competition. Politicians go out of their way to elicit denials from
their opponents, because
On 17:34:11 Dec 14, bofh wrote:
Heh. I think we're having far too much fun in the other threads.
You mean threads or thread? ;)
ha ha
I
have a serious question.
Shoot.
I'm a mangler in a largish company. We have
developers, and contractors. No coding standards and all that, so,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I'm not talking about any and
all things that make installation of anything easier. Just about
giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs. That's
what the issue is.
do you give a no-recommendation to the
I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
I really fail to see, how a response like this serves OpenBSD or any
other good purpose at all!
If Richard Stallman is a hypocrite his answers and statements will show
this by
On Dec 14, 2007 7:35 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with coding standards is that they generally at best
help slightly with things that do not matter, generally at the expense
of everything that actually does matter.
There are uses for it. You want some kind of
On Dec 14, 2007 5:44 PM, Gregg Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when
This may be true 10 years ago.
* Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 15:49:54]:
I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people
were making inaccurate statements about my views.
I noticed that the subject of this
== wooosh ===(your humour)
O(my head)
--knitti
do firmware writers really use gcc? I always thought they use something else.
On 12/14/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
making your original
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
making your original comments, and starting this thread?
That would be the deciding
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:47:40PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author
consent period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses.
Yes it is. Now, show me a real enterprise linux.
On 12/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 1:59 AM, visc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a mix of HP models depending on purchase date - 1300n, 1320n,
etc. Also had about 10 HP 2015s that were working FINE...
(Apologies for two replies to the same message.)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now
== wooosh ===(your humour)
O(my head)
--knitti
-
Thats the whole point of this crap. The threads aren't funny and
waste a lot of time. I guess I did go whoosh over your head.
Rob
--
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:07 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
There is a big practical difference between making a free system
suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a
non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are
different.
People already know about
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
|
| Interesting, these linux distributions.
|
| They are GNU/Linux
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
There are commits from [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Emacs CVS repository from
earlier this year.
code by RMS or clearance to commit old stuff from xemacs developers?
Rico Secada wrote:
I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been
lost because
of this ugly behaviour. Ofcourse you don't care about that,
but I really
think you are hurting BSD, and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
lot of people has said so many times - OpenBSD has an
(Apologies for two replies to the same message.)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:23:22PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and
Thanks For the help But looking at the following
OK here is the update:
Internet
I
OpenBSD 4.2 (1) 10.60.0.1--- wired LAN
I
wireless card - 10.60.128.1
I
I
I
wireless card ral0 - 10.60.128.2
I netmask 255.255.192.0
I broadcast
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:44:13AM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
: I've had a p2015dn since march of this year and it prints ps just fine
: via lpd.
:
: $ cat /etc/printcap
: lp|lj-p2015:\
: :rm=192.168.10.140:\
: :lp=:\
: :rp=raw:\
:
On Dec 14, 2007 8:51 PM, Benjamin M. A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
licence by
Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify my
license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
I really fail to see, how a response like this serves OpenBSD or any
other good purpose at all!
It serves our purposes to make it clear to peoepl that Richard's mission
to
On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Rico Secada wrote:
I used to respect you a lot Theo but that respect has been
lost because
of this ugly behaviour. Ofcourse you don't care about that,
but I really
think you are hurting BSD, and not just OpenBSD, by confirming what a
lot of
On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
watchings kids have fun, too?
Thanks For the help But looking at the following
OK here is the update:
Internet
I
OpenBSD 4.2 (1) 10.60.0.1--- wired LAN
I
wireless card - 10.60.128.1
I
I
I
wireless card ral0 - 10.60.128.2
I netmask 255.255.192.0
I
Thanks For the help But looking at the following
OK here is the update:
Internet
I
OpenBSD 4.2 (1) 10.60.0.1--- wired LAN
I
wireless card - 10.60.128.1
I
I
I
wireless card ral0 - 10.60.128.2
I netmask 255.255.192.0
I
* Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-12 17:52:29]:
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is
On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:06:35PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you
may
write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify
my
license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
If you use a BSD
On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
^^^
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:22:30PM -0500, Jim Razmus sez:
* Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071214 15:51]:
Me! Me! Ship it to my address:
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301
USA
-Bob
* Breen Ouellette
bofh wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
watchings kids have
And the GPLv3? He was the puppet that sold it, but the text was
mostly written by a bunch of lawyers who will take care of it after
Richard dies. And they've made sure that there are holes in the
less-free GPLv3, and they will make a lot of money off those who
voilate the interpretation
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:06:35PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
That's bullshit. Read it again. The BSD license gives the recipient
some abilities, but retains others. One of those is that the source
code must retain the license. Other restrictions... why do we
On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it is
bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs
or VIP to edit one.
I don't know, Richard.
Do you have *any* idea of just how petty and puerile an off-the-cuff
remark like this makes you look?
On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?
Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
batches almost made me suspect that he uses
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
