Paul Wise writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> The behavior with net.ipv6.bindv6only=0 is mandated by both POSIX and
>> the governing RFC. How can you call it a bug for software to expect
>> that behavior? The true bug is that Debian inte
? The true bug is that Debian intentionally violates these
standards. If people decide (as Vincent Bernat suggested) that Debian
is a buggy piece of junk because of that, they will be right.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
ysctl option; setting bindv6only to a non-zero
value makes the OS behave in a non-standard manner. This is quite
different from the IFS or PATH example.
[1]- RFC 3493, section 5.3, IPV6_V6ONLY option for AF_INET6 Sockets: "By
default this option is turned off."
Michael Poole
--
To UNS
and how obviously?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Jérôme Pouiller writes:
> In another thread, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> I can't see how it'd work here, at least without the help of some
>> on-disk structure, since we're talking about a space of 25,000
>> packages.
>
> Naive search of matching string under a set of 25,000 strings is
> something li
? I would say: Package the library,
implement the fuzzy matching, and if it is too slow for people to like
the case where they misspell a package name, *then* optimize for
run-time. I would rather have the fuzzy matching sooner than have it
shave a few milliseconds off the display time for a correctio
gulatory
requirements, qualifying new binaries is a considerable cost --
having nothing to do with whether the software is "proprietary" --
and multiarch makes it easier for them also to migrate at a pace
that makes sense to them.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-re
satire was sexist, in fact, is explicitly heteronormative.
Aren't you concerned about offending non-straight members of the
Debian community?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Gran writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Michael Poole said:
>> What happens for a user who (however absurd or insane he might be to
>> try this with gtk+) tries to link his application statically?
>>
>> Perhaps the "absurd and wrong" part is that
-static-libs rather than --libs,
but there is a good reason to provide the transitive closure of
dependencies for a package *somewhere* in pkg-config.
Michael Poole
ific citations, and asked if
you would take seriously someone who made analogous errors of fact in
a different area. You asserted in another post that -legal was often
not taken seriously by the rest of Debian; it seems fair to point out
why there may be similar feelings in the other direction, at least as
far as legal analysis goes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
> The debian-legal checklist:
>
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstre
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>
>> > I don't think that's meaningful; if I sue you in a court in Australia
>> > for not complying with debootstrap's license, and
to sue people
and/or the results of lawsuits are more predictable. Is that truly
acceptable in a free software license?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Jun 02, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
>> particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
>> for the contrary position have been m
ormation, and is even less so when that
> poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue.
A blatant appeal to authority in place of facts or analysis isn't
particularly useful information, and is even less so when arguments
for the contrary position have been made but not answered.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ke them, or
an appropriate vehicle to enforce the licensor's views on the issue.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 24 mai 2007 à 15:36 -0400, Michael Poole a écrit :
>> > Please stop the choice-of-law bullshit. This clause is moot, we can
>> > ignore it.
>>
>> Moot in what venues? I live in a state that has enacted the Uniform
>>
e made that barrier rather high in practice.
I'm not a fan of judging licenses free because Debian thinks certain
clauses are moot. If the clause is in fact moot, the license is
buggy. If the clause is not moot -- at the time of upload or some
point afterwards -- it can cause significant harm.
tocol is not supported by the version of ircu that is currently
in Debian. A quick glance at both the 5.0.61 and 5.1-pre1 source code
for ircservices shows that it still uses p9 rather than p10.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian May writes:
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Michael> Why do you think these servers conflict with each other?
>
> ... because, generally speaking, the servers will be automatically
> instal
t I have
seen support just one or two variants of server-to-server protocol.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
automake,
autoconf, possibly libtool, etc. This is when backwards incompatible
changes cause problems.
On top of the default automake behavior being horribly broken, does
that make usual revision control practices horribly broken?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<2.59 but wanting AS_HELP_STRING in
2.59. Unfortunately, the old way produces goofy formatting (and maybe
a warning; I forget exactly) under 2.59.
The situation is not helped when these mutually incompatible programs
all prefer to be called "automake" or "autoconf" and, on le
A promise to indemnify Sun would not prevent or limit this tactic. It
would instead mean that "Debian" (whatever entity or entities agreed
to that indemnification) would end up paying Sun's legal bills and
damages until "Debian" went bankrupt. The remaining balance would
come
and
are written to let Debian interoperate with that non-free software?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ody), a General
> > Resolution.
>
> Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for this issue? It is
> them who decide if the package can go into main or not.
The package is already in main. The person who filed this bug thinks
the maintainer and ftp-master decisions were wrong
ference to
the "main" versus "non-free" sections, since it already says "We
promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these guidelines." Thus, it requires that the Debian
system not include packages that meet Policy's definitio
as an exhaustive list. If you use a broad
definition of "require", it is reasonable to exclude ndiswrapper from
main on the grounds that there are no NDIS drivers in main. I think
that is a too-broad definition of require, but using it does not
require changing foundation documents.
Micha
s
argued a year ago, ndiswrapper-in-main advocates think it is a waste
of time and want to convey their arguments so that everyone remembers
and does not want to argue again in another year.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It has been argued in this thread that if ndiswrapper were put in
> > main, it would mean that contrib has no point at all. One could
> > equally well argue that if ndiswrapper were put i
utting a package in
contrib when it could go into main raises questions of *why* it was
put in contrib -- and which other packages might get the same
treatment. If putting it in contrib were simply an accident, then
that bug could just be fixed with no policy implications.
Michael Poole
--
F's usual position[1] is that the GPL does not require GPL
compatibility for non-distributed modifications of a GPLed program.
Are you saying that the FSF is incorrect about the GPL, or are you
making some other claim about what behavior is permitted?
[1]- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:40 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
> > > listed a dozen or so packages in Debian which require nasm in order to
> > > build. Ho
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:46 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
> > > hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
> > > of maki
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 21:32 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> > > fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
> > > reason, we
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Michael Poole]
> > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it
> > on? Despite Anthony's claim, I see no packages that can use nasm out
> > of the box
>
> If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you
ontain only Debian. They require bits of non-free. As is often
pointed out, Debian has chosen (twice) to make life hard for those
users. I guess the preferred solution for them is to just use some
other distribution.
Michael Poole
it is free) from outside
> > > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> >
> > Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> > antiword and similar tools to contrib.
>
> *points at abiword and openoffice.org*
Those are (arguably) differe
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> >
> > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful,
g drivers to run on Linux.
This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary
level but not translation at the source level. I guess that's
reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
or the DFSG makes.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
that policy requires.
You are the one who insists that the execution must be "free, non-toy,
non-POC", and that is why I said that if you want to change the state
of things, you should revise the DFSG or policy.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o push against ndiswrapper is a
grudge.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; > may lose posting permissions as well.
>
> You should lose -private rights, as you clearly cant follow its rule to
> not leak.
I don't understand. Martin's email did not mention -private. Do you
mean to say that this decision was made as the result of discussion o
a non-Linux binary driver loaded versus that
person using some other Linux distribution or some (non-free?) OS?
Those questions need to be answered before deciding whether Debian
should "do something" about the packages you describe.
Michael Poole
recipients) of software,
not to preserve anyone's physical property rights. Infringing those
copyrights or hoarding those freedoms may be moral or legal wrongs of
a degree similar to theft but they are _not_ theft.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Frank Küster writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>>>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>>
>>>
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
>> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
>> necessary system header files with their applicat
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
>> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
>> "Source code" is defined to be the
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
>> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
>> of an application that uses them. The C
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>
any number of other flaws, but it is
neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
>> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
>> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to se
For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that? Does Sun
represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What
about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It is not clear to me that
>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>> definition files".
>
> Wrong. Library header files that you link against ar
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
>> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
>> modules, shared libraries or the ker
e FSF or GPLed-work copyright owner to demonstrate
that "contains" unambiguously includes "references".
[1]- Since neither statute nor case law has to my knowledge defined
treatment of "pure copyright licenses", traditional contract law seems
most applicable.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
same flames are possible with blogs -- a blog's distinction is that it
is clumsier to find a whole exchange, since trackbacks do not have the
shared locality of a mailing list.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
>> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
>> what the license imposes on or requires from users.
>
>
ost universal, but (from my own experience)
there may be a pre-trial conference where a judge orders all the
parties to attend in person. It will also be cheaper for a party to
fly to the court's venue to be deposed than to fly their lawyer to
where they live, and no US-filed case goes to t
ou prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the
distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the
licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.
Choice of law is generally accepted because no one has explained why
the chosen laws inherently discriminate against groups. Some legal
systems/chosen laws would fail "must n
inst it?
Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely
all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to
the court's jurisdiction. As an example, the QPL discriminates
against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso.
Michael Poole
--
T
Alec Berryman writes:
> Michael Poole on 2005-08-19 10:32:27 -0400:
>
>> OpenCVS has not yet identified any specific problem (except the GPL)
>> that the project would address.
>
> It has indeed. GNU CVS has a poor security record; OpenCVS plans not
> to.
What part of
do
not make for useful software. What benefit does it bring Debian's
users, or what benefit does it being in Debian bring to the larger
free software community?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d into some device.
>
> So you think the key difference is whether the data downloaded lands
> on a hard drive instead of a flash rom?
That is apparently an important distinction when it comes to where the
data is customarily stored; why should it be ignored for a download?
Michael Poo
Matt Kraai writes:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:53:40PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > To play devil's advocate: Why is wine in main? Its only use is to run
> > proprietary windows programs inside the WINE environment, so it's a
> > clear fit for contrib.
>
t;
> ACK.
To play devil's advocate: Why is wine in main? Its only use is to run
proprietary windows programs inside the WINE environment, so it's a
clear fit for contrib.
The main page of the NdisWrapper project has a link to a GPLed NDIS
driver, so it seems like the main reason to remove ndiswrapper from
Debian is spite.
Michael Poole
into main. No matter what
> > software said server is running. Correct?
>
> In essence, yes.
>
> Do you have a problem netcat being in main?
That is a disingenuous comparison. netcat is to network data as hex
editors are to file data. The suggested graphviz-client is very
different.
Michael Poole
Chasecreek Systemhouse writes:
> On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hardware design has very different and higher third-party costs than
> > software design, and the cost to make and test minor revisions can be
> > a signi
than
software design, and the cost to make and test minor revisions can be
a significant fraction of the cost to do the initial build. As long
as that is true, free hardware is not possible on the same scale as
free software or with many of its benefits.
Michael Poole
ce-distribution restrictions.
When the firmware is burned into the device, the user is prevented
from modifying it in a rather more drastic and permanent fashion than
when the restrictions are a matter of missing code or permissions.
Michael Poole
ed to contrib while the
rest of the kernel stays in main, it seems reasonable that AIM support
for gaim, naim, etc. should also be moved to contrib.
Michael Poole
s not approved or does not track, and so
forth. None of that is relevant to whether someone is exposed to
criminal liability or liable for actual damages for distributing a
package like hot-babe.
Michael Poole
ackage)
is useful and stays out of the way. At least to me, "unstable" means
a set of generally useful packages and "experimental" means a set of
less stable packages useful if you want to beta-test future releases.
Michael Poole
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:24:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>> >There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels.
>>
>> Robert, your (frankly autistic) worldview worries me. What do you
>> believe
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Robert Millan writes:
>>
>> > And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
>> > claim it doesn't have
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:44:55AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> > How do the current kernel packages guarantee this?
>> >
>> > Why would Robert's package need to behave any differently?
>>
>> The current kernel packages don't make the old s
Robert Millan writes:
> And even if it was, I claimed my packages has some advantages, but didn't
> claim it doesn't have any disadvantages.
Please explain why the putative advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
1) I haven't built a 2.4 kernel lately, but in linux-2.6, selecting
some mandatory f
Eduard Bloch writes:
> Do you see now that 8 of your 10 percent come directly from the
> application code and other two maybe from the optimized libc? There is
> not{hing| much} we have won using an optimised kernel. But the placebo
> effect has been demonstraded once again.
You have not shown wh
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> # time bzip2 -9k linux-2.6.0-test5.tar
>>
>> real2m40.974s
>> user2m33.679s
> ...
>> user2m49.316s
>
> Even then, it's about only 10 percent. Let's compare them with vanilla
> kernel, optimised for P4:
What are you trying to measure here?
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are (at least) the following benefits:
>
> - Easy understanding of the package. Developers looking at the package will
>find every piece in the place Debian packages normaly put it. The binaries
>are in .deb, pristine upstream sources are
gt; like them.
Having options for the sake of having options is, frankly, a hideously
stupid design doctrine. Whose life will this package make easier? As
a user, I have never been confused by Debian's "normal" Linux kernel
packages. What specific benefits would your proposed package offer?
Michael Poole
Julian Mehnle writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Mail is not sent from any particular address at all; it is sent by a
>> person or program. It is delivered to one or more addresses. The
>> From: address and SMTP and envelope sender addresses are for human
>> underst
Julian Mehnle writes:
> Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source
> mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends
> from? If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can
> argue against. :-)
Mail is not sent from any particular address at a
Michael Stone writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > The shared library is 179 kB. Why don't you just provide the optimized
> > versions in the same package? Are the any stability/correctness issues
>
> Now for the real overachiever, what would be r
87 matches
Mail list logo
