On 06/11/2012 07:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
[snip]
If I am missing something, is there a discussion link (URL) of the
issues, preferably not in legalese?
There are dozens of threads, and there's the acutal licensing in the
RPM's and SRPM's. Take a good look in
On 06/13/2012 01:31 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 06/11/2012 07:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
[snip]
If I am missing something, is there a discussion link (URL) of the
issues, preferably not in legalese?
There are dozens of threads, and there's the acutal licensing in the
RPM's and SRPM's. Take
The move to /linux/scientific/obsolete/version name for Scientific
Linux 4 is now complete.
On 06/11/2012 10:01 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
Reminder:
As of February 2012 Scientific Linux 4 has been receiving no updates
of any type since it has been designated End of Life. The extra
length of
Knew I forgot something:
And thanks for the report!
On 06/12/2012 02:55 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
This should be fixed now, please let us know if this is not accurate.
Pat
On 06/10/2012 08:54 AM, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
Hi peter.c...@stfc.ac.uk!
On 2012.06.07 at 18:01:30 +,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:11:23AM +0900, zxq9 wrote:
On 06/12/2012 03:49 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
Am I missing something here? I thought under the GPL as well as various
other open source licenses, TUV was required to make available the full
source from which the full non-encumbered distro
On 06/13/2012 06:44 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
(On this list, are we really required to say TUV instead of ***censored***,
as if we were playing a 1984 double-speak live action game?)
Yes, because lawyers have made even casual conversation a legal
minefield for reasons other than
