On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ?
You are a troll.
Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or
I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell.
Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:47:16AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:53:30AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ?
You are a troll.
Either I did and you missed
Oh, the real troll just arrived (one more list where he get's to the
kill file).
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:52:34PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I'm not from the FSF.
Yeah, yeah. You're a kind of Richard
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:51:22PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 12:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables
running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as
such de-incentivates
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:28:19AM -0800, Ray Percival wrote:
don't like you. You think we rank up there with baby killers. I will NEVER
understand how that works so just FOAD and we can all be happy.
I think that ranking you mention is 100% your interpretation. :)
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:34:49PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Blah blah blah my feelers are hurt. Do I need to mail you some maxi
pads?
Now that you mention it, shortly after this idiotic flame I started
receiving tons of spam.
I wonder if they're related...
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:34:45PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary
system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it
is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links
to
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote:
Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see
it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about
EVERYTHING and every other religion and church is wrong.
You seem to abuse the word hypocrisy.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:46:08PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote:
When you say the world is not made of such extremes, do you mean you
think the long-term effects of something are always unquantifiable?
The long term effects of anything are always something left to optimism
or pessimism, according
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:18:34PM -0700, L wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote:
Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see
it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about
EVERYTHING
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:00:55PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the cc's of your messages.
FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
Yet you have no idea whether these people are
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:15:08PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove
from the cc's of your messages.
Who knows?
Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense of
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:12PM -0700, L wrote:
That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco?
Right, his extreme insults are meaningless and unprovocative.
And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too!
You are insulting me!
Right, did the hat fit? Because I said
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Dusty wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra only ever contributes to this list when its in a
flame war, and always to take up a contrary point of view. He has proved
only one thing. Trolls do exist and their primary form of communication is
to point and grunt
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:03AM +0100, Karl Sjodahl - dunceor wrote:
This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it.
If one doesn't want to hear what outsiders want to say, then perhaps
posting should be restricted to list members.
Rui
--
This statement is false.
Today
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:19:03AM -0600, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
i couldn't help but notice his initials are RMSS, not so far from RMS.
perhaps this is a nome de plume for that other weaselly contrarian, mr.
stallman.
Yet you couldn't help notice the relation with the name as being more
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:44:59PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
:-) that was to the guy who called you a troll right?
I said perhaps you are a paid FSF mercenary or as you accused me
delusional :-)
I wish I was paid to only work on Free Software, I'd be much more
productive.
Rui
--
Today is
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:35:16PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails
from trollers like Rui Seabra?
F.Y. You are the troll.
Rui
--
Keep the Lasagna flying!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
others?
Because for me
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:49:45PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
proprietary
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word free,
which we don't give a
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
non-free are distributed in the ports site.
And yet, you still don't have it quite right. Saying that the ports system
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
want's
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:22:35AM -0700, L wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
The world will fall because OpenBSD recommends that people
install a game... a game that is free
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:23:21PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles
in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in
the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing
OpenBSD's ports tree with its
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the cc's of your messages.
FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.
If you
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible
hypocritical positions. His arguments are a misleading hyperbole.
Your attitude is also indefensible and ostentiously hypocritical, with a
rudeness that only adds
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 07:48:26AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Who is we?
Right, of course... I won't do it alone, because to do it alone all I
have needed is quite well served by
http://www.armorlogic.com/openbsd_information_server_compatibility_list.html
But apparently there are more
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote:
I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System
out of the box?
Any suggestions will be great useful to me.
Dear Selva,
The following list has been useful for me, but I can't make any promises
about it's
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:53:37AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/12/20 11:28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote:
I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System
out of the box?
Any
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term covenant(ed)
software. So-called free software, as rms uses the term, is
totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on
violence to compel modifiers of the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:52:56AM -0700, L wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term covenant(ed)
software. So-called free software, as rms uses the term, is
totally dependent
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:30:32AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
blah blah blah
As usual you keep repeating what you said before but it _still_ does not
make it so.
It's not that you disagree that 1000g = 1Kg, it's how rudely you can
bash those who agree so.
Rui
--
Fnord.
Today is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about
our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
thing yourself.
Please see
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar.
Choice quotes from
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:49:34PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Because he tends to be unfriendly.
Now *that* I find humorous.
I find it Kafka-esque, your
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:57:53PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on free software, and
distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down
the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting
the users freedom.
illegal
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:37:19PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 2:46 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from
company policies which require digital signature of software downloaded
through
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:23:41PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
blah blah blah
have you ever wondered why openbsd doesn't do binary updates?
I'm not talking about updates, I can read C.
maybe you are now going to be able to figure out why we don't need
complex signing mechanisms.
You're
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:59:31AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote:
I'm surprised that OpenBSD (the most secure OS I know of)
does not use it, that's all I'm saying. I also thought there would be a real
reason for not doing so and there may in fact be and I may just be unaware
of it.
OpenBSD
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:23:28AM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/5/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from
company policies which require digital signature of software downloaded
through the internet
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
* Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-03 06:19]:
No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news.
Dunno about no harm done there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do
any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
What happens:
1. I boot frw1, it becomes MASTER on all carps - good.
2. I boot frw2, it becomes BACKUP on all carps except carp0, which
becomes MASTER - bad.
Any ideas?
Do you have pass quick for carp and pfsync *before*
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Erich wrote:
hi,
i have successfully setup a carp setup with 10 carp devices. on box is
master and another box is backup, so if the master fails the backup box
takes over.
i have sysctl net.inet.carp.preempt=1 and the backup box announces with
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 04:31:22PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, efficient,
compact OS done
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:49:20AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
In security, complex != good.
Yes, which is one of the reasons I personally believe Visa's PCI is an
extortion sham.
However, some hugely influential entities happen to require those
complexities, and no reason on the world will
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, efficient,
compact OS done by folks you can trust and actually talk to, use OBSD; if
you want 'fairly secure Linux' [which has had thousands of hand in it
including NSA, as
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:35:54AM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Remember: OpenBSD still doesn't have a digitally signed code distribution,
and in some places that means it can't enter! Stupid, I know, but not too
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:34:36PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote:
The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human
being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive
to date) application of the Dada Engine.
I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;)
*giggle*
Rui
--
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:34:03PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release
of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers
is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours,
possibly days,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow
some users to loose freedom...
Hello again Rui,
the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote:
On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
to loose freedom...
You make the point of using
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to the source code.
That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more
importantly there
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:11:38AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Good luck doing so without any source code.
Teehee Teehee. No luck required.
It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence.
Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability.
The source tends to make assorted bugs
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
change a program because he has no access to the source code.
You seem to be entirely missing
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
Damien Miller wrote:
To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You seem uneducated about how
.
By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing.
But then, you seem to actually be THAT incompetent.
-Original Message-
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Tony Abernethy
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
the freedom to modify
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
| | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up
this topic.
It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm
at (someplace I definitely am not).
The question here is not
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the
spirit is established. I can play
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit (I
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Rui,
On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
than the GPL because the BSD
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:45PM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
Your point is that the BSD license is a wrong because it gives people
too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in
your earlier message.
No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that, not
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
|
| The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
|
| You don't seem
| While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
| code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar share
| alike license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
| perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
|
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright
questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation.
Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you?
It's in every citizen's duty to know about the
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it
under the terms of the GPL v2
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices.
You can get http
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any
reputable dictionary (legal or not),
Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT
Hi Sunnz,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
conditions, not the BSD ones.
GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under
certain conditions), but not re-license, right?
No,
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last
paragraph above (starting with Alternatively) as explicit permission
to replace all of the previous material (starting with Redistribution
and use) with the
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
And...
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
And... you
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false, only if software is distributed.
or
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hello!
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and GPL-only
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
^ (all line)
* GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free
^ (all
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
*
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
So if they chose to distribute those 3 files
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
get
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
Noun
alternative (plural alternatives)
1. A situation which allows a choice between two
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question.
Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted
ones
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
The copyright notice
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Rafael Almeida wrote:
The main problem I see here is the government incentivating the
purshase of Microsoft product. It's kinda dumb paying the guy pay to a
company that has nothing to do witht he whole thing as a punishment
for your crimes. It would
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In the switch:
interface GigabitEthernet0/3
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280
switchport mode trunk
no ip address
interface GigabitEthernet0/6
switchport access vlan
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Have you tried a -current snapshot at all?
sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant.
description:
revision 1.49
date: 2007/05/21 10:05:03; author: reyk; state: Exp; lines: +4 -3
fix bnx vlan
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Have you tried a -current snapshot at all?
sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant.
description
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:36:57PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Have you tried a -current
Hi,
In the switch:
interface GigabitEthernet0/3
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280
switchport mode trunk
no ip address
interface GigabitEthernet0/6
switchport access vlan 101
no ip address
In machine A:
cat /etc/hostname.bnx0
up
cat
Thanks very much!
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:01AM +0200, Johan P. Lindstrvm wrote:
rough translation from swedish to english of:
...
Ter, 2007-04-24 C s 11:32 -0400, Steven Harms escreveu:
I can verify that ssh between Ubuntu 7.04 and openbsd is completely
working. Your issue is with your /etc/ssh_config.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I second this verification.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+
Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
and generic copyright work.
[correct the subject] ;)
Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
[set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with
bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
