Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Wesley W. Terpstra writes: > Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a small investment of effort and > without having had access to my library, he could have never written it. > He then distributes his client along with my library to end-users. If his client represents only a small investment of effort you can invest a similar small amount of effort in writing a Free version of his client and include it with your library, thus destroying his market. -- John Hasler
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Måns Rullgård writes: > Actually, copyright law talks a great deal about derivative works, > without ever going to the trouble of defining them... The US statute does so, but US case law defines them fairly well. -- John Hasler
Re: remove me from call*wave
Henning Makholm writes: > I still wonder what the people posting here are thinking, though. Probably the same thing as the one who emailed me personally (cc'ing debian-user) asking for help with his "AO*L a*rt fi*le" problem. -- John Hasler
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
William Ballard writes: > After all, we have Christian Syria and Christian Lebanon out of it. There were Christians in Syria and Lebanon _long_ before the Crusades. -- John Hasler
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
William Ballard writes: > The Bible should be in Debian. But the Koran, the Torah, and the Vishnu > texts (name escapes me at the moment) should all be in there too. Debian is not Project Gutenberg. Debian is about _software_. -- John Hasler
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
I wrote: > Debian is not Project Gutenberg. Debian is about _software_. William Ballard writes: > Bible software. It's more than a mere e-Text. They are more like little > databases. You wrote "The Bible should be in Debian", not "Bible software should be in Debian". And while I do not object to bible (or koran, or devil-worship) software, I think that saying that it _should_ be in Debian is excessive. Debian can do very well without religious software. This is obscure specialty stuff. -- John Hasler
Re: Bug#284219: please remove gnu-standards
Glenn Maynard writes: > gnu-standards is obviously unlikely to be relicensed, and can't be > rewritten Of course it could be rewritten (though a rewrite should be retitled). Standards are ideas, not expression. -- John Hasler
Re: Debian package selection depending on user location/belief/society
Philippe De Swert writes: > I am just wondering if it is not the responabilty of the actual Debian > user not to violate his local laws. Of course it is. Unfortunately, governments don't generally agree. -- John Hasler
Re: SVG icons
Ron Johnson wrote: > > See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should > > follow these explanations. Note that RFC 2119 does not mention the phrase "may not". In American english it clearly means "is not permitted". For clarity in policy documents "must not" should be used when the intent is to state that something is not permitted. If the intent is to say that one has the choice of doing or not doing something structure the sentence so as to use "may" or "optional". Don't use "may not" to mean "you can leave this out if you want to". It might be best to not use it at all as it seems to engender some confusion. Note also that the RFC says the the imperatives it defines should be used sparingly. -- John Hasler
Re: Linux Core Consortium
Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > Using binaries from LCC would also run against the Debian principle of > always building Debian packages from their source before uploading them. > That's a big deal. Big enough that I think common binaries should be completely out of the question for that reason alone. I also haven't seen a convincing argument that they are beneficial. Why don't standard ABIs suffice? -- John Hasler
Re: Linux Core Consortium
Matthew Palmer writes: > Consider a function int s(int, int) -- you can have two ABI-compatible > versions of this, one that adds it's arguments and one that multiplies > them. ABI compatible, but different results. And different APIs. Is that really a serious risk? > ...who's to say that some program isn't relying on the former (buggy) > operation of the library? How could the program do that without being buggy itself? -- John Hasler
Re: Obfuscated source
Andi writes: > "preferred form for modification" is _only_ a GPL-term and not part of > the SC. The SC is not a legal document. Common sense should suffice to conclude that obfuscated source does not comply with the DFSG. -- John Hasler
Re: add Date: field to Packages files
Stephen Gran writes: > You have the changelogs. Use them. The changelogs are in the Packages file? -- John Hasler
Re: Why firmware generally won't be Free Software
Bruce writes: > If we ask for the embedded programming in the devices to be open as well, > we are essentially asking for the hardware design below the bus level to > be opened. That doesn't follow. The embedded code is essentially a driver for the internal device and reveals only a limited amount about how it works. Exactly how much it reveals depends on the design and varies a lot. There are a couple of other problems, however. a) The embedded code often includes large chunks of sublicensed code which the vendor is not at liberty to release. b) The hardware often contains sublicensed logic protected by NDAs so ferocious that disclosing source for the code that drives devices containing it could result in termination of the license. The other thing to consider is that many of these devices may not have much in the way of original hardware design: everything that differentiates this guy from his competitors may be in the embedded code. -- John Hasler
Re: removing in postrm rc*.d symlinks that I did not create
Nicolas writes: > I already thought about it, but I fnind it quite confusing when I cannot > run /etc/init.d/foobar by hand as soon as it is not enabled on startup. Your script should check $PRERUNLEVEL. It will be N if you are booting. -- John Hasler
Re: removing in postrm rc*.d symlinks that I did not create
I wrote:
> Your script should check $PRERUNLEVEL. It will be N if you are booting.
That should be $PREVLEVEL.
--
John Hasler
Re: removing in postrm rc*.d symlinks that I did not create
I wrote: > Your script should check [$PREVLEVEL]. It will be N if you are booting. Nicolas writes: > That's a nice idea, but do you know how fine it would behave with things > like file-rc? It should work fine. Note that this method _only_ controls script execution at boot time. If you also want to prevent the service from being started on a runlevel change you have to do something else such as checking $0. -- John Hasler
Re: removing in postrm rc*.d symlinks that I did not create
I wrote: > If you also want to prevent the service from being started on a runlevel > change you have to do something else such as checking $0. Init exports RUNLEVEL, PREVLEVEL, and INIT_VERSION. Thus INIT_VERSION will be set if you are booting or changing runlevels. -- John Hasler
Re: dependancy issues
Josselin Mouette writes: > Why in the world would you then want to install a metapackage if its > selection doesn't suit you? Most users do not understand meta-packages. They decide to "run Gnome" rather than "run KDE" and so they install Gnome. -- John Hasler
Re: partial patches - server application
Thiemo Seufer writes: > I haven't found an -f option in diff. Look at the info docs. -- John Hasler
Re: scripts to download porn in Debian?
Sam Watkins writes: > Another issue - if a script is designed specifically to download non-free > content, shouldn't it go in contrib? According to Debian's official view > that anything made of bits is software, the scripts to fetch the comics > should go in contrib. Only a miniscule fraction of Web pages are Free. I guess that puts Firefox in contrib. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is /.udev for ?
Norbert Tretkowski writes: > There's no label saying "if you don't like these wires, remove them". And cars never grow unwanted wires. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is /.udev for ?
Roberto C. Sanchez writes: > I said "snap it off," not "carefully remove with appropriate tools." > Anyone who goes mucking around their filesystem removing potentially > critical compenents without thinking about it and using the proper tools > for the job, is not thinking straight. Rm is the tool that we provide for removing things. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is /.udev for ?
Thomas Bushnell writes: > Even if one thinks "I've been compromised", it is not the right thing to > immediately delete the files which are the evidence of the intrusion. People often do the wrong thing, especially when agitated. When we notice something they could hurt themselves on we should try to blunt the sharp edges a bit, if possible. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First line in /etc/hosts
Mark Brown writes: > ...NIS needs to hand out the IP address of the machine... Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every machine with one or more external interfaces has at least two: 127.0.0.1 for the loopback interface and one for each external interface. > Resolving the hostname is a standard method for obtaining an IP address > for the machine... Every machine with more than one interface has at least two hostnames: localhost on network 127 and something else on the external networks. Routers often have different hostnames on different external interfaces. I think there are two problems here: some packages make assumptions about *the* IP number and/or *the* hostname, and /etc/hosts gets misconfigured either by buggy software or the admin. The purpose of /etc/hosts is to associate IP numbers with hostnames. I can see no good reason to associate 127.0.0.1 with any name other than localhost. It is also not always necessary for all of a machine's IP numbers and/or hostnames to appear in /etc/hosts. (I'm sure you know all this, Mark, but I'm not sure everyone else in the thread does. I *am* sure that some people writing Linux programs don't.) -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#295328: general: Help messages to stderr should be banned
Justin Pryzby writes: > It occurs to me that help output to stderr is arguably appropriate if an > invalid option is given But '--help' is not an invalid option. I'll have to check my packages. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#295328: general: Help messages to stderr should be banned
Francesco P. Lovergine writes: > It depends on programs, sometimes the same usage function is used for > either --help or invalid options. Sure, but the output should still be directed correctly. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
William Ballard writes: > The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic config > file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way. Does it tell you which is the upstream way? Most new users won't know. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
Henning Makholm writes: > I maintain one package whose upstream author apparently thought that > $PATH would be a good place to look for a system-wide configuration > file. I changed that to look in /etc instead, which makes the > configuration mechanism in Debian substantially different from > upstream's. I have made similar changes, but I also patched the documentation. Many DDs do not do so, confusing users. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
Blunt Jackson writes: > I'm still not sure I understand it, but at for now I have it > working). There was a substantial amount of hair pulling and cursing due > to the disparity between what I saw on my hard drive and what I saw in > the online documentation. Why were you not referring to the Debian documentation? It has been (or should have been) edited to reflect the "Debian way". > domainlist local_domains = DEBCONFlocal_domainsDEBCONF > How do I figure out where that DEBCONF stuff is coming from? What it > means? I suspect that those DEBCONF strings are flags for the debconf package configuration system which should have been run during installation at which point it would have set up the config for you after asking you some questions. Either there is a bug or you did something strange. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
Marc writes: > I would consider it a feature to have mailman work immediately after > installation on a default system, and the exim4 configuration scheme has > explicitly invented with that possibility in mind. I would consider it an obnoxious bug for the installation of a package to alter my email configuration. At least make enabling the change a Debconf question. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's remove mips, mipsel, s390, ...
Brian Nelson writes: > That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc) > would be enough to reveal nearly all portability bugs. It required several architectures to uncover all of the portability bugs in Chrony. ppc was not one of them. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cross-compiling and dist-cc
Wouter Verhelst wrote: > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error... The idea is to cross-compile and native-compile _for_ _the_ _same_ _target_ _architecture_ and then compare the binaries. I don't see why they should differ. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Any reason why I'm not CCed by bugs of my packages?
Andreas Tille writes: > but got no mail notification about #296197 - just have seen it via web > interface. Any idea what went wrong here. (If I'm not absolutely wrong > this is not the first case for this package.) I have no idea what causes it but the same thing happens to me a couple of times a year. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#297233: ITP: wmansied -- An ANSI/ASCII editor.
Joe Wreschnig writes: > I don't know what the official standards for the character set and > terminal specifications are... Whatever IBM said they were. I believe they are in the IBM PC Technical Reference Manual: I've got one around here somewhere. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Henning Makholm writes: > Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem. If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem. There are sure to be borderline cases, but it usually isn't all that hard to tell the difference between appalling style and deliberate obfuscation. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Restrictive SMTP server
daniel writes: > I'm with a problem about sending emails @debian.org. My ESP (email > service provider) has a restrictive rule about sending emails with a From > header different of the account you actually have. Is it the "From:" header they object to, or the SMTP HELO? I fix up the latter in Exim. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Restrictive SMTP server
Gunnar Wolf writes: > I deliver SMTP to the smarthost 127.0.0.1:10025 > At 127.0.0.1:10025, I have a ProtoWrap agent invoked with the script > shown below > ProtoWrap changes the envelope and hands it over to my ISP's MTA I find it much simpler to just configure my local MTA to make the necessary adjustments before delivering the mail to my ISP's smarthost. The only change I've ever found necessary, though, is to forge the HELO command used by my MTA when talking to the smarthost. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: arch-specific packages and the new SCC requirements
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded > because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is > update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps, > ppp, pppconfig, setserial. Pppconfig is not kernel-specific. It's just a little Perl program that edits some PPP files. While I have never tried it, I see no reason why it wouldn't work on Solaris or BSD. I'm quite surprised that the Hurd still doesn't support PPP. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes: > I'd like to know if anyone cares about using these binary signatures I do. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Marc Haber writes: > So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsigs because they believe them to be hard to use and not supported by the infrastructure or by policy. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Olaf van der Spek writes: > Security is more than package signatures. What is your specific proposal? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
I wrote: > I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsigs because they believe > them to be hard to use and not supported by the infrastructure or by > policy. Marc Haber writes: > dpkg-sig is harly "hard to use". Please re-read what I wrote. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd administration
Erinn Clark writes: > Surely flaming people on mailing lists as a way to get things done is not > something people want to encourage in NMs... right? Right. After all, as we all know, no DD would ever do such a thing. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries
Daniel Baumann writes: > Why then being so complicated? If there is a candidate in a country > doomed by US export laws, 'export' the notebook first to someone other > and ship if afterwards to Cuba. This would still violate the export law. Otherwise the law would be even more pointless than it already is. I don't see why we need to concern ourselves about it, though. Intel has lawyers. If they have to disqualify some candidates for legal reasons they can do so without our help. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries
Daniel writes: > Why should it be illegal to re-sell or outreach a piece of US hardware, > which is already imported into a free country, into another free country? It would be illegal for Intel to send the hardware to someone it knows is going to send it somewhere that it would be illegal for Intel to send it directly. Otherwise the controls would be even more pointless. > However, it's not imported yet for breaking onces head about it anyway. We don't even know that the subject hardware would be subject to export controls. There's really no reason for us to concern ourselves about it. BTW the US is not the only country with such laws. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Size matters. Debian binary package stats
Michelle writes: > I heared (on debian-isp) that in the USA you can get a BGP4 routed STM4 > (622MBit) Fiber Optic for only 120.000 US$ PER YEAR !!! Benjamin writes: > Where can I get the fiber optic for $10/year? I think you meant to write $10/month. However, Michelle is European and uses '.' where you would use ',' in numbers. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
Thomas Hood writes: > If they were submitted to the BTS then that would just create more work > for the Debian maintainer as well as for the Ubuntu maintainer, since the > former would have to tag the report and ensure it gets closed on the next > upload, etc. That's exactly how I want to handle my packages. If I ever get around to looking at the Ubuntu stuff and find anything relevant (I don't know if they use any of my packages) I'll just put them in the BTS myself anyway. > However, to perform this breakdown would be for Ubuntu developers to make > judgments about what is suitable for Debian, and I am sure that such > judgments would provoke negative reactions from Debian developers. Why? Don't we expect users to decide which of their local changes are suitable for Debian? I sometimes make local changes to Debian packages. Sometimes I send patches to the BTS and sometimes I decide that the change is only relevant to my local situation. Should I instead put them all up on a Web site and expect the maintainers to sort through them? I think of Ubuntu as just another (large) user. If they don't feel like filing bugs that's fine: it costs me nothing for them to use my work (if they indeed do). However, I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than (or even as good as) filing bug reports. > So I think that it is up to Debian maintainers to review the Ubuntu > patches from time to time and to backport what appears to be suitable for > Debian. Again, why should Ubuntu's patches be handled any differently than those of other users? > I agree that it would be nice if Ubuntu developers tried to get their > changes into sid. It is certainly not their responsibility to do so, but > in my experience Ubuntu developers have been very cooperative when they > have been approached. So I don't see a big problem. I don't either. After all, most users don't file bug reports, and Ubuntu is (in my view), a user. It would be nice to have their feedback since it is likely to be useful and of high quality, but we can live without it. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
Matt Zimmerman writes: > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you... "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer" implies to me that I can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that privilege). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude and camaraderie, but it does not come across that way. Perhaps "Every Debian developer is, in a sense, also an Ubuntu developer" might get the point across more clearly. > Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is > present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me... It doesn't to me. I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using my packages. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
I wrote: > I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using > my packages. mdz writes: > Have you ever received such a notification? Yes. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
mdz writes: > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org > which have not been verified on Debian... I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not the bug is likely to be present in the corresponding Debian package. If you are wrong once in a while it's hardly the end of the world. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Derived distributions and the Maintainer: field
Nathanael Nerode writes: > Then the *source* packages can legitimately use the same Maintainer: field. > If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian, the > binaries > can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in Debian, because they > are essentially the same package. > If not, the binary packages should have different Maintainer: fields Personally, I have no objection to the Maintainer field remaining unchanged when the source package is unchanged. > For instance, debugging bugs in your package generated by a toolchain you > don't have is obnoxious, frustrating, and a waste of time... If building one of my packages with a well-chosen toolchain fails or produces a buggy binary there is probably something wrong with it that will eventually bite me and I'd like to know about it (in the form of a wishlist bug). > Ubuntu should be sorting out whether such problems are present in Debian > before sending them to the Debian maintainer. Ubuntu should certainly first try to make sure the problem is not theirs. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package
Andrew writes: > Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main > already? rsync springs to mind. Don't forget the Linux kernel. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Paul Johnson writes: > Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is > cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the > debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or > society... Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just libel? > ...what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? The fact that most of us are interested in cooperation or at least peaceful coexistence. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo writes: > ...we should start by removing GPG signatures and md5sums from main, as > those are invariant bits. GPG signatures and md5sums are not licensed under non-free terms (in fact, they are probably not protected by copyright at all). You are free to change and/or redistribute them. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
Pierre Habouzit writes: > I strongly oppose to such an expulsion. So do I. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what is Debian's mailing address?
I have an envelope on my desk containing a xerox copy of my driver's license. I have been instructed to send it in so that I can finish getting approved as a maintainer. There's just one problem: I need an address to send it to. I've emailed new-maintainer about this and gotten no response. Can someone who is not going on vacation please supply the appropriate address? John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: apply to NM? ha!
Henning Makholm writes: > I believe that it *should* be a requirement that one has enough calm to > most of the time respond to (percieved or actual) aggression and insults > in a less aggressive and insulting way than the other party > uses. Otherwise the project will surely die (film at 11!) from runaway > flamewar escalation. > If you want to describe that as "thick-skinned enough to cope" (which, > based on my understanding of English, would not be a bad description), > then yes, somebody involved in Debian *should* be thick-skinned enough to > cope. "Thin-skinned" people often react to hostility by simply going away. Often, they do so even when the hostility was not directed at them. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apply to NM? ha!
Gergely Nagy writes: > Indeed. Even if all of us start to behave ourselves and avoid nasty > flamewars (ha! in your dreams! :P), we still have to deal with the > occassional bugreporter of Barbaric Communication School For 1337 People > (the `f**k you, this piece of s***e doesn't work, go fix it or I'll be > REAL angry and how you dare you release such a [EMAIL PROTECTED]' kind). That sort of hostility is much easier to deal with calmly than hostility from fellow developers. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Slightly Off Topic: Laptops for Debian
Jacob writes: > I hear iBooks have a much better value for the money. Not just from a > power perspective, but also because the PowerBooks get to looking ugly > really fast. This is due to the iBook case being made from a nice durable > plastic while the PowerBook case is made from easily > scratchable/dentable/etc. aluminum. Sounds like a good reason to buy a used PowerBook. "Durable plastic" is an oxymoron. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Depends: and commands used in maintainer scripts
Joel Aelwyn writes: > Because policy, unlike RFCs, does not use normative declarations such as > SHOULD and MUST... >From debian-policy: In the normative part of this manual, the words must, should and may, and the adjectives required, recommended and optional, are used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted by must (or required) will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by may (or optional) are truly optional and adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#292183: ITP: gtkpizza -- Pizza takeaway managment program written in gtk
Enrico Zini writes: > And if there is cheese inside the border, that's not pizza: refuse to pay > and move to another restaurant! > And "Pizza ai peperoni" is pizza with peppers, not with hot sausage! Words with similar spelling often have different meanings in different languages. Such is the case here. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?
Jochen Voss writes: > until now I was under the impression that /usr/bin/ should only contain > programs which are expected to be directly called by users. > In bug #292759 the maintainer of gettext-base claims, that it is also ok > to install shell script sniplets, which are not executable on itself into > /usr/bin/ You are correct. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?
Jochen Voss writes: > Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS > was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look. While the FHS is not as explicit as it might be, with the application of a bit of common sense it is sufficiently clear. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?
Thomas Hood wrote: > Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions? Where can we find these functions? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
Dan Jacobson writes: > ...Debian Headquarters... There is no such place. > Why isn't this same apt-get check that the user does, also get done > beforehand by the archive patrol? The users of Unstable are the archive patrol. > For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if > the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? That's what Unstable is for. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: acenic firmware rewrite
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > I didn't look at the existing code yet, but looking at the datasheet > (http://alteon.shareable.org/firmware-source/12.4.13/tigonbk.pdf.bz2) it > doesn't seem to be a very complicated chip to code for. I'm not sure > however, how to handle the development in such a way the resulting > firmware can be released under a free license without any legal risks. Unless you've signed an NDA you're fine. Just do it. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: acenic firmware rewrite
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver writes: > I was more thinking of someone reading the existing firmware sources, > writing a spec and a second person/group implementing the new free > firmware based on the spec. AFAICS the implementors and the spec writers > should be different people/groups. You can do that if you expect the authors of the existing sources to sue and want an absolutely bulletproof case, but it isn't legally necessary. > Or do you think it would be ok if the same people read the existing > non-free sources and reimplement its functionality in a new free > firmware? As long as they don't copy any protected code you'll be fine. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: acenic firmware rewrite
I wrote: > As long as they don't copy any protected code you'll be fine. Wouter Verhelst writes: > That's the problem, I'm afraid. It's not unlikely that you'll have this > 'great idea' which in reality is something you remember from reading the > original source, but not remembering that this is the case. Copyright does not protect ideas. The subject is software, not music. > This won't happen if the people reading the source and those writing the > new stuff are different people. When faced with the same problems the people writing the code are likely to come up with solutions similar to those used by the authors of the non-free version. You might actually be better off referring to the non-free code and deliberately making yours different where possible. > This is also what the Compaq people did when they rewrote the IBM BIOS... Compaq used the "clean room" technique because a) the BIOS requirements are such that many problems have only one solution and so Compaq's code was certain to be very similar (or even identical) to IBM's in many places and b) they expected IBM to sue and wanted a bulletproof defense (IBM did not sue). -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Elmwood, WI USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
Matthew Garrett writes: > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a > piece of software. That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for use elsewhere. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
Adrian Bunk wrote: > The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or > with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you > explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences > between free and non-free software are pretty small. For nearly everyone else software is free if you don't have to pay for it. Should we then package everything that won't get us sued? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of "use"
Margarita Manterola writes: > If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of > owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind of > hard to 'own'), then you should say that. One can (and usually does) own a copy of a piece of software. US copyright law grants specific rights to the owner of a copy of a piece of software. Better to be more specific, though. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: transcode
Transcode is not in Debian because the codecs are not DFSG-compliant. Look at <http://apt-get.org> for an unofficial package. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu and its "appropriation" of Debian maintainers
Adam Majer writes: > I just search Google for me and I found this, > https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/people/adamm/ They have a similar page for me. Nothing there indicates that I am not an Ubuntu employee. > Well, at least on pages like, > http://packages.ubuntu.com/hoary/misc/mysql-query-browser > They have "Adam Majer is responsible for this Debian package" with a > link to Debian's QA. For me they have: "John Hasler is the maintainer of the following distribution packages: Ubuntu Linux :: hoary :: pppconfig" > Anyway, the bottom line is, >1. I'm a Debian Developer and chose to be associated with Debian >2. I have not chosen or gave permission to be associated with > modified/unmodified packages of other distributions (that may or may not > derive from Debian). > What do other DDs think about this problem (or is it even a problem?)? > Personally, I believe Ubuntu must either change the Maintainer field of > all packages such that it points to Ubuntu Developers *or* get > permission to keep the Maintainer field as is from the Debian package > maintainer. I mostly agree with you. I don't mind at all if they want to identify me as the upstream _Debian_ maintainer (or author in some cases) of my packages, but if I'm an Ubuntu maintainer where is my paycheck? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
Ed Cogburn writes: > Wait a second, if you *aren't* Debian, it should be *easier* for you to > provide non-free, not harder. The only problem with non-free is the > internal politics of Debian. Ubuntu certainly doesn't have any problem > providing access to, but not support for, non-free. One of the common reasons for packages to be in non-free is that they have "non-commercial" clauses in their licenses. This means that Debian can distribute them free of charge but they cannot be put on CDs and sold. In some cases they may not even be _used_ for anything but "personal use". Others contain clauses forbidding their use for certain purposes or by certain agencies. The only thing you can say for sure about all the packages in non-free is that Debian can make them available for downloading. Anyone contemplating redistributing non-free should examine the license in every single package. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dependency on base package adduser ?
Russ Allbery writes: > So far as I know, a base package (section base) has no particular special > meaning from a dependency perspective, although I believe that section > may be reserved for required packages (but am not sure). There are optional packages in base. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?
Steve writes: > The Unix world was badly hurt by deliberate code forking during the 80s. > Those of us who lived through it are scared of a repeat. I don't believe that a Free Software fork can cause such damage. The Unix wars of the eighties depended on closed-source licensing. They also resulted from deliberate policies of attempting to lock-in customers with "differentiation". -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?
Steve writes: The Unix world was badly hurt by deliberate code forking during the 80s. > Those of us who lived through it are scared of a repeat. I wrote: > I don't believe that a Free Software fork can cause such damage. mag writes: > Forks in OSS do have drawbacks, this is why they are generally frowned > upon. I agree that they may have drawbacks, but I don't believe that they can cause the sort of damage that the Unix wars caused. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Elmwood, WI USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: C++ ABI change for etch -- freeze unstable for all C++ libs with changed or new sonames
David Nusinow writes: > No. There are a number of people who are in charge of important technical > decisions who have no more association with Canonical than you or I > do. I'm sure if you stop ranting for a moment and think about it you can > name some of them yourself. You are assuming that everyone has been paying close attention to Ubuntu and it's activities. While I have the impression that many Debian "senior developers" are involved with it, I can name only one who I am sure is and one who I am sure isn't. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#311795: ITP: rast -- A full text search system
NOKUBI Takatsugu writes: > BTW, there is the "n-gram" word in libdigest-nilsimsa-perl package's > description without explain of the word. Where it helps to render the description incomprehensible. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Nokia device is Debian-based?
Jesus Climent writes: > That is the key: OSS cannot be killed, not while EU and USA's governments, > local and nationwide, are promoting, using and even developing OSS themselves. > Would you shoot on your feet? The politicians really don't comprehend the problem (and neither do most of the CEOs of the pro-patent companies). They believe that the OSS companies can just pay the royalties and all will be fine. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Nokia device is Debian-based?
Michelle Konzack writes: > I know, and I have no money to sue Microsoft which has stolen a Software > which was 1986 under PD for educational use only... You don't need any money and you don't need to sue Microsoft. If you have proof of prior art for a software patent please contact one of the many organizations fighting such patents, such as the Free Software Foundation <http://www.gnu.org>. Several US software patents have been overturned recently when prior art was discovered by software patent opponents. BTW I assume that by "under a PD" you mean released into the public domain? It is not possible for a work to be both "public domain" and "educational use only". Do you mean that Microsoft has patented an invention that was published in the referenced work, or that they are infringing the copyright? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Nokia device is Debian-based?
I wrote: > You don't need any money and you don't need to sue Microsoft. If you have > proof of prior art for a software patent please contact one of the many > organizations fighting such patents, such as the Free Software Foundation > <http://www.gnu.org>. Michelle Konzack writes: > Hmmm, should I conntact them to make troble with M$ and friends ? Please do. I wrote: > BTW I assume that by "under a PD" you mean released into the public domain? > It is not possible for a work to be both "public domain" and "educational > use only". Michelle Konzack writes: > In the USA but in Germany... I doubt that the definition of public domain is significantly different in Germany. > I have found source code of SCO in Linux and Linux code in SCO, BUT it is > OpenSCO and this part was GPLed. I have the OpenSCO CD's at home, and I > know what I am talking about. It is quite legal for SCO to distribute GPL software as long as they comply with the license. > But SCO tell us, there is stolen Source-Code! When the court ordered SCO to produce that code they admitted there was none. > The Judges in the USA have never seen the SCO-Source in original and now? The judges have access to everything. BTW the company that now calls itself SCO is not the original SCO. It used to be called Caldera and was a Linux company. It bought SCO's Unix business (and the name SCO) from SCO. At about the time that it sued IBM it changed its name to "The SCO Group" and now calls itself SCO. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Andrew Suffield wrote: > No way. Debian has always avoided mindlessly dictating what runlevels > must be used for. There's no reason to destroy this feature now. And > there's no advantage to consuming an entire runlevel just to say > "/etc/init.d/xdm stop" or "/etc/init.d/networking stop", which is all > that you are proposing. Roberto C. Sanchez writes: > I agree. I rather like being able to configure run levels to my liking. Why would defaulting to something other than the current flat arrangement prevent you from configuring your runlevels to your liking? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Meelis Roos writes: > Display manager as a normal service that can be started and stopped like > other services is very natural. No need to confuse the users with more > runlevels since there's not much point in differentiating them nowadays. Users coming from other distributions expect more runlevels. It's the _lack_ that confuses them. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Roberto C. Sanchez writes: > Where, pray tell, is a newbie going to learn about [runlevels]? a) By having used Red Hat. b) By reading up on Linux before trying to use it (yes, some people _do_ that). -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Frank Lenaerts writes: > The proposal however, indicates that a runlevel would be dedicated to > X. In my setup, this would mean that my application server would have to > run in this dedicated X runlevel because xdm happens to be started there. The proposal would do nothing to prevent you from continuing to customize your runlevels. We are mererly proposing to change the default, not to impose anything on you. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Wouter Verhelst writes: > In practice, many third-party applications will make assumptions about > the availability and configuration of runlevels... Seems to me that the most likely such assumption is that the runlevels are Red Hat-like. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Jesus Climent writes: > Exactly my point, what impedes an admin to set some defaults wether the > system comes as it comes now or with some predefined options and > settings? Nothing, except for the fact that most "admins" haven't the foggiest idea how to do that. Thus the suggestion that the default runlevels be what most people expect them to be. And it _does_ come with "predefined options and settings": ones unique to Debian. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Humberto Massa Guimarães writes: > But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under GPL#6, > "no further restrictions"? Yes. Copyright and trademark are completely orthogonal. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Adrian von Bidder writes: > The people you probably mean when you write "admin" (with the quotes) > usually, in my experience, go into blank-stare-mode when I mention the > word 'runlevel' or even 'command line'. There are many who have a primitive notion of what runlevels are and how to use them but have no idea how to change them. The advice to boot to runlevel 3 to fix X is commonly seen even on debian-user. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Baptiste Carvello writes: > rename all elements that are difficult to change, like package names.. Before changing anything it might be worthwhile to get a legal opinion as to what (if anything) that Debian is now doing infringes the Firefox trademark. For example, I'm not at all sure that package names infringe. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Peter Samuelson writes: > I'm curious to know where you got that impression. I just reread the > DFSG and it makes no mention of copyrights, trademarks or patents. The legislative history of the DFSG makes it quite clear that it was only intended to apply to copyrights. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Bernardo Arlandis Mañó writes: > Even when a package is free that doesn't mean you can name it using a > trademark name, that would be an illegal use of a trademark. it is not at all clear that that is true. A trademark owner does not have anywhere near the rights of a copyright owner. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks
Alexander Sack writes: > In general the part of the MoFo brand we are talking about is the product > name (e.g. firefox, thunderbird, sunbird). From what I can recall now, it > is used in the help menu, the about box, the package-name and the window > title bar. I'm not convinced that any of these constitute trademark infringement. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming removal of orphaned packages
Luca writes: > Under gnome you can find gpppkill and gpppon, but they can't manage > provider setting. Gpppon doesn't need to manage settings. It uses the same settings as pon/poff, which can be managed with pppconfig. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ongoing Firefox (and Thunderbird) Trademark problems
Donald J Bindner writes: > 2) create a permanent "transition package" with the firefox name >that depends on it > 3) use alternatives to provide /usr/bin/firefox Thereby attaching the name "Firefox" to something which is not pristine Mozilla code. This is exactly what it is being claimed we may not do without explicit permission[1]. [1] I doubt that trademark law reaches that far, but I am not a lawyer. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks
Gerv writes: > If I label the car I've built as a Ford (even if it uses a lot of Ford > parts), it infringes Ford's trademark. Not until you try to sell it. Ford Motor Company does not own the word 'Ford'. They merely have the exclusive right to sell automobiles (and related parts and services) using that mark. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Elmwood, WI USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks
Michael writes: > Debian doesn't "need" such an arrangement, as I argued in a previous > thread six months ago; there's the Coty v. Prestonettes standard and all > that. But IMHO it would be advisable for both sides if such an > arrangement were reached. Exactly. If Debian doesn't need such an arrangement, neither do our users. And if our users don't need such an arrangement, our accepting it does not put us in a privileged position with respect to them: they have the legal right to do everything that we want to do with or without permission. So let's accept the "arrangement" and move on. There is no DFSG problem here even if we do accept the notion that the DFSG applies to trademarks. -- John Hasler (IANAL, IAADD) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla Foundation Trademarks
Eric Dorland writes: > If we don't need the "arrangement", why exactly would we accept it > anyway? Because they want it and it costs us nothing to give it to them. They are our friends. Let's accommodate them where we can. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
