On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a
license for my project that I don't want.
1. Stallman states that Linux current version is partially non-free. *1
A program can't be partially non-free. A program is free if users have
the four freedoms, if not, it is non-free. The users of Linux does not
have the freedom to access the source code of parts of it (freedom 1).
2. Stallman
2008/1/12, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
It is normal for users to install
Sunnz ha scritto:
2008/1/12, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
It is normal for
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a
license for my project that I don't want.
We require you to use, for your program that contains our
2008/1/9, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
| automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
| can choose another operating system that does
On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware.
I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
for free (like a cell
[...] Linux is not free software.
[...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line.
Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its
project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software.
Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular
context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was
talking about within an acceptable level of error.
I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any
On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dusty wrote:
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?
Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
What
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that
method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me
On Jan 08 00:13:19, Reid Nichol wrote:
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me
L wrote:
Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
The GNG foundation
On 06/01/2008, at 9:47 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
found those quotes? If not, I will look for someone else who
will do that for me.
You know that saying, if you want something done right, you do it
yourself?
I'd be adhering
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:10 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend
non-free software,
I explained it earlier in this thread.
so if you could, please, give an example by
showing
On Jan 8, 2008 5:09 PM, Janne Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L wrote:
Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole
Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu.
But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when Torvalds' version of Linux
is not free software! And let me put
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:10 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?
That is not what happened. I stated an accurate
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:18 +0530, Karthik Kumar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
you've
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:09:42 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
No it does not. During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
microcode to CPUs if necessary.
I did not know that. That is not good. I will have to think about
what we should do about this. Perhaps remove that
On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote:
When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.
And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your
standards?
The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I
On Jan 9, 2008 12:36 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a
list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian.
I use gNewSense.
Nothing else?
Be Frank.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:16 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
But what about the different case where the company permits
redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
Of course
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:11 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that
we do not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
The people who do
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:14:59 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend
in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
In Linux terminology, blobs means firmware and only firmware. It
appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
Thus, we had a failure of communication.
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware.
I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
for free (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it around
On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be *your* usual interpretation of the revised BSD license
Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers.
As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him.
Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in Eben
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
In Linux terminology, blobs means firmware and only firmware. It
appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
Thus, we had a failure of communication.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
| (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
| Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.
|
| The
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.
Many of the messages have argued (or even demanded) that I
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
the ones I've read. AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
responding here to this issue agree with me.
Most of the people responding here, yes, but that doesn't
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Man you are hard to talk to. You keep making stuff up and don't reply
to questions people ask you. I even tried to ask you politely.
You keep making stuff up is a rather harsh accusation. (Also, it
isn't true.) I
On Jan 8, 2008 6:47 PM, Andris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when Torvalds' version of Linux
is not free software! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
(http://gnu.org/ packages, free software)
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
| able to reason it out, you moron.
I'm glad you've resorted to namecalling. That'll surely help you find
the non-free files in OpenBSD. Please remember to send
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you
redefine
your own language.
It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific
activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights
organizations
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of
non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need
not be
of
--- Roberto J. Dohnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the
FSF, I
choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the
desktop
(with all
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise.
To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-)
And you've continued to
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
b. Make assumptions about the person in a.
most of us found out
On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do
not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask
them to look for something, but I
But what about the different case where the company permits
redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
that point
No,
http://torrent.gnome.org/
Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
found those quotes?
That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages.
Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page.
So I looked there, and found them there.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
exclude such
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.
Then, sir,
In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
is in the recipes for installing them.
Oh, no URL?
I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble?
The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for
non-free programs. There is no
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do
not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
The people who do searches for
Alberto Gonzalez is that you?
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?
That is not what happened. I stated
On Jan 7, 2008 5:01 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| But what about the different case where the company permits
| redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
| code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
|
| Of course and
On Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
in gNewSense.
gNewsSense bugs 31, 100, 103, 108:
31: license problems - cdrecord (no open date)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00031
100: Helix Player
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:52AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 +
Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL
On Jan 7, 2008 9:19 PM, Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt.
Can't you read?
The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
would have shown this page:
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Alberto Gonzalez is that you?
at least in this case the excuse is somewhat valid, as richard is
certainly old enough for the claim of i cannot recall to hold water.
perhaps he should see a doctor about this?
in the case that richard is not in the initial stages
equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, it enables him to destroy the
good by comparing it to the perfect
Firmware runs on the hardware, not in the kernel.
On Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take
dropped misc by accident
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
But what about the different case where the company permits
redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
Richard Stallman wrote:
My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
and would not remove it.
I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
for an idle request. If the OpenBSD
As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was
or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and
the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
On 1/7/08, Craig Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.
I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning
of freedom involves filling in
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked.
On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately erect barriers against.
The evidence of this discussion shows that's
Richard Stallman wrote:
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list
Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting?
From what I've seen from you on
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman
and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman
and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.
I don't think so -- that is too much
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that
I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free
programs. And their words show that they
Richard Stallman wrote:
But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.
Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward. You
On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.
Under the usual interpretation of the
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and
the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
I don't recall
On 1/7/08, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
Quite right. As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your
endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you the
On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Dusty wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.
Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
WHY, please
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately erect barriers against.
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.
Try or Do? So, if we
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
Please do what all researchers do. State the origin of where you got
Dusty wrote:
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?
Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We only want an apology Richard. You said things about our project that
were very unfriendly and not true. Apologize and admit you were wrong
and I promise I'll leave this alone.
So if Richard sends an email stating I am sorry for using
I have had a short term memory problem almost my whole life. I have been on
medication because of it. This means I find it almost impossible to learn to
code and have to re-read any documentation when I have to do even the
simplest task.
I've been using openbsd for about 10 years now. Whenever up
Richard Stallman 7-Jan-08 17:14
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately erect barriers against.
The
On Jan 7, 2008 12:14 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:14:59PM -0500, Richard Salmon wrote:
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately
2008/1/8, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman
and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
I don't
Jason Dixon wrote:
Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?
Plausible deniability.
More like deniable plausibility.
On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Secure by default. Ship with nothing and call it secure. Wow! Maybe it
shouldn't start the network by default, huh? Then that's secure, isn't
it? Start no daemons, start no shells: ZOMG!!! it's secure :P
Oddly, I find this more sensible than
BUT I WILL STILL GO ON SPREADING THE LIE THAT OpenBSD CONTAINS
NON-FREE SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE ARE MISLEAD
I never intentionally said such a thing. It was a misunderstanding,
because I chose words that were subject to misinterpretation.
I appreciate having been informed about the
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big
encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words
) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed.
The practical
Richard Stallman wrote:
I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.
It is an important contribution to our community.
Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.
Lies and insults are a strange way of showing appreciation.
On Jan 6, 2008 9:43 AM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be
Karthik Kumar
On Jan 6, 2008 1:52 PM, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karthik Kumar wrote:
So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how
it was not
free.
Maybe your information is worthless.
Mine isn't.
So it is about the money. :-) The value of your
Karthik Kumar wrote:
No. It is a reply to someone who said it was not the money.
about the money??? --- what money?
There is no money involeved with the free registrations
Or is the free registration, and the desire to avoid such,
somehow about the money that desn't exist?
that desn't
On Jan 6, 2008 1:39 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big
encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words
) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
There are two issues
On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Karthik Kumar wrote:
openvpn 2.0.x is in the ports: not by default. PF is not enabled by
default.
Deliberately ignoring the point doesn't make it any less relevant.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
| non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
| be documented for users to get their job done faster.
|
|
| If you don't
1 - 100 of 856 matches
Mail list logo
