u stop. Your posts
are counter-productive - your style of argumentation repels those who
may have sympathy, and inflames those who already disagree with you.
Your current activities are accomplishing nothing. There is no advantage
to be gained in "I told you so" - instead, you merely delay us from
going anywhere.
Please. No more.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hed to the
device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is
the same regardless, why are we concerned about how it's packaged?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some
>> depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the
>> driver can't
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, you're one of those Ubuntus, right? No more to be said then...
I am not an employee of Canonical, and nor have I ever been.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Package name: ibm-acpi
This has been integrated into the acpi.sf.net patch, so is fairly likely
to end up in the mainstream kernel before too long.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * URL : http://www.softwarestudio.org/libical/
The last version of this appears to have been released in 2002. Is there
any sign of ongoing development, and is there any software that actually
uses this library?
--
Matthew Garrett
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Sun, Oct 24, 2004:
>
>> This has been integrated into the acpi.sf.net patch, so is fairly likely
>> to end up in the mainstream kernel before too long.
>
> Oh never read of that,
Developers, do not allow
http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Asecring.gpg
to happen to you.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
putting it another way: failing to include this piece of code does
Debian no demonstrable harm. Including it does. I know we have something
of a reputation for preferring philosophical masturbation to actually
doing the useful thing, but that shouldn't result in a several hundred
post flamewar. What are you all, stupid or something?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a strong argument for
maintainers actually being allowed to spell their name properly, even if
pragmatism suggests that we want a latinised version available as well.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ar=
> e=20
> used.
The libc manual is out of date. We've been using more than 16 bits for a
while.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: vbetool
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~mjg59/laptops/
* License : GPL
Description : run real-mode video BIOS code to alter ha
rely happy to describe this
distinction as arbitrary.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would make more sense if I sent it to the right list, really. Sorry
about that.
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
>> debian-legal
lone blobs just have to follow DFSG if they want to be in main
> and some of the BSD licensed blobs can be once they stop linking into
> the kernel. Blame it on the viral nature of the GPL.
Yes. That's an entirely separate issue. The definition of a DFSG blob is
difficult, though.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The dependency still exists - it just isn't expressed within the terms
>> of our package management system. I am entirely happy to describe this
>> distinction as
rmissions.
Indeed. If I want to flash various bits of hardware I have, I need to
reverse engineer the flash method first. This isn't necessary if I have
a driver that uploads an image on every boot. If the firmware isn't in
flash, I'm completely screwed.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t attacking a different problem (unchangeable
> burned-in software).
Burned-in software is, in general, non-free software. It would be as
easy for us to write a free alternative as it would be to write a free
version of firmware loaded from disk. Why do you believe this goal to be
less important?
--
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This argument suggests that we can shift drivers from contrib to main
>> simply by turning them into kernel patches and getting them included in
>> the stock kern
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 11 d=E9cembre 2004 =E0 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
>> We put it in contrib
>> so that people know that by using this software, they will also have to
>> use non-free code. This is less obvious for d
their drivers, so that users are warned away from them.
How does moving firmware from the disk to the hardware (therefore making
it harder to modify and more expensive) further the cause of free
software?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t of drivers - the ipw2100 requires
different firmware for Linux and Windows.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ly with the DFSG.
While I tend to agree, this has the unfortunate side-effect of removing
any form of support for Nvidia graphics cards.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It makes it covered by the hardware manufacturers warentee. If it is
> faulty, you can return it for repair or refund.
Under UK law, I have the same rights with faulty software. Do other
jurisdictions actually treat software and hardware differently in this
respect?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
open the firmware in its entirity. One
of these choices does nothing to advance freedom. The other does. If
anything, we should be happy that manufacturers /are/ starting to move
away from flash - it makes it clearer that there's a freedom issue that
we're not at liberty to ignore.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Non-free code in flash is no more or less a problem than non-free code on
>>disk.
>>
>>
> Except that we have to distribute it. If the manufacturer is so
> concerned about their code th
this sort of thing.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on-free code that
exists on the filesystem but is executed on that device? How is the
cause of free software advanced? How is the experience of our users
improved?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ia humour.
Given all that he's done for Debian at various points, suggesting that
he shouldn't be here is really going too far.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:37:45AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > No, there's a very concrete reason: given an installation of Debian
>> > main, the dri
So far, this is all a repeat. It wasn't convincing any of
> the last couple times, so it won't be this time.
Note that the social contract says "requires", not "depends". I'm
inclined to believe that policy is in the wrong here.
(This does not mean that I believ
u can find me a piece of hardware that can be driven by the
kernel's orinoco driver and which contains no non-free executable code,
I will agree that the driver does not require the use of non-free
executable code. But not until then.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use of volunteers, accusations of
conspiracies and generally nasty attitude is a good combination of
tactics to ensure that your questions are never answered, no matter how
good they are.
If you have any desire to help Debian, then lose the attitude. If you
don't, then please stop wasting
he biggest blocker after these things is
probably a general failure to actually care all that much. How many
people are actually behaving as if a release is just around the corner?
How can we fix this?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on the correct side of it. As a
project, Debian owes you nothing. If you're not going to make a
sufficiently useful contribution to outweigh your character flaws, then
it's better for you to make no contribution whatsoever.
Unless you're a FPAV fan, please don't Cc: me.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Releasing every 6
months wouldn't be a problem if we could support the previous two
releases as well. That's probably excessive, but the optimal release
length depends on how much support we can provide.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t; vast majority of the stuff that runs in Wine is non-free--but not all, so
> Wine goes in main. The relative quantities aren't relevant.
Even then, the freeness of material outside Debian is generally ignored.
We have multiple clients that only work with non-free servers.
--
Matthew Garre
nd up as eth2 anyway.
It makes more sense to either bind configuration to specific cards
(using the mac address, for instance), or different classes of card.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 18:45 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Naming wired network eth%d and wireless wlan%d would make things a lot
>> > easier. For example, it is easi
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff.
> Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff). It won't contain
> higher-level anything.
The active development seems to disagree with you...
--
Matthew Garret
g ext2/3, that isn't a problem.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d to a
large audience?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he ensuing fallout) arising
in future?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel the need point out that the current DPL and one DPL candidate,
> Matthew Garrett, havn't expressed support for this proposal in its
> current form.
I should say that I don't necessarily disagree with the current
proposals,
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:58:06AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Uhm. You knew that conclusions from that meeting would be likely to
>> contradict the answers from other DPL candidates, but you did nothing to
>> make the
hat, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be available.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
>> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
>&
else
> pay the bill ?
As mentioned in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/03/msg00015.html , the
funding came from NUUGF. As far as I know, the project spent no money on
this.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive.
Uh. Not if you want to distribute any GPLed material.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:49 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
> >> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive.
> >
> > Uh. Not if you want
laiming that there was any sort of conspiracy to make
people look stupid. However, given that two of the people responding
knew that the situation had changed, it ought to have been possible to
let the others know that answering this question was a bad idea. As you
say, though, the timing was unfo
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's not clear that an FTP site really satisfies that, and it's also the
>> case that this is the FSF's interpretation rather than being the one
>>
/
solid technical discussion going on. We do have problems, and this is
(so far) the best proposal we've had for dealing with them. I just wish
it had been reached somewhat differently.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p-to in replies. This discussion doesn't
belong on this list.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anything
other than an absolutely final resort.
(m-f-t -project - this isn't a technical discussion)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Barth has posted a good description of the problems that the
release team face, and how the proposal would help. I'm hoping that
something similary will be forthcoming from the ftp-masters.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
ve the effect of
discouraging people who /aren't/ working on the potentially affected
ports. If we're going to fail to release architectures, then let's base
this on technical grounds rather than "I don't see any real reason why
you need to release this architecture".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ebian, but so far it
hasn't been added to the buildd setup. I'm not clear on the reasons for
this.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e number drops below 12 again.
If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid
situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the
release team because there are already too many architectures. I'm not
massively keen on this - it ends up sounding a bi
n is insane, and bringing
it up in such a hostile manner (not to mention attempting to use it to
claim that the DPL team don't care about your particular issue) isn't
going to result in it being fixed faster. Instead, it's going to result
in people assuming that you're some s
The answer is "all of them", so this one's not very compelling.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ebian archive
>> > (to be added to dinstall at some point).
>
> [Matthew Garrett]
>> The answer is "all of them", so this one's not very compelling.
[Someone with a horrid, horrid quoting style]
> What? All Ubuntu .deb files went through ftp-master.debian
#x27;d
argue that it needs to be possible for configuration to be done on a
per-user basis (you wouldn't believe the degree of argument over whether
closing the lid of a laptop should trigger a suspend or not)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
figured for a server-type environment.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
other packages
c) Should be configurable in terms of default response to actions
d) Should (optionally) get out of the way if a user runs a power
management daemon
2) Define a mechanism for packages to drop scripts into this framework
3) Ensure that packages like gnome-power-manager and whateve
ose the lid is a per-user
preference. The length of time before an idle system suspends is a
per-user preference.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rivileges, which means that some amount of policy has to be
determined by processes running as the user. It's also important that
this sort of thing can only be controlled by an appropriate user - if
I'm logged in on a background VT, I shouldn't be able to trigger power
management st
ut
>> of things"?
>
> How many developer resignations will you need to understand inaction
> from people at key positions sucks the fun out of things in a worse way?
Reading these threads makes me want to resign. WILL YOU NOT THINK OF THE
CHILDREN?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMA
e for developers to be ejected from the project.
If you feel that anyone is behaving in a way that would not have allowed
them to get through NM, then please do invoke it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ything else should go in /var/run.
Under Linux, can't all of this be done with mount --move anyway? I'm not
convinced that we actually need a /run any more.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:57:35AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Under Linux, can't all of this be done with mount --move anyway? I'm not
>> convinced that we actually need a /run any more.
>
> So you would hav
obvious target. How about dealing with some more significant problems?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FDL,
> but the FDL is non-DFSG-free in the general case.
I don't think the FSF have ever claimed that the GFDL would class as a
free software license. Their standards for free documentation licenses
are clearly different to the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNS
ivergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need to figure out how and
why. Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to
help the community.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
>> guidelines.
>
> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what fre
y of my packages. I'd be even happier if anyone who did so
was willing to enter into some sort of reciprocal agreement.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
plain text configuration files has never been the Unix
way, and vi certainly isn't a standard unix tool.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dless of
whether you download 1GB or 20GB in a month. Therefore, as long as the
increase in traffic doesn't saturate your line, the cost per GB is 0.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
f
> launchpad which is better. Again, I think it would do a good job keeping
> everything organized an efficient.
Launchpad is currently non-free, so it doesn't seem terribly likely.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
S service. Thanks, Sourceforge)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s", they've said
"If you report a bug to Debian and nobody forwards it, we know nothing
about it".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your
> employer gives back to Debian?
If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in
this case, I don't know.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
> cooperates fully with Debian.
Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mdz writes:
>> Have you ever received such a notification?
>
> Yes.
I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-(((
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
>
> I wasn't aware of them until just now. :)
Wow!
> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
>
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
>> insufficiently complicated.
>
> And you are willing to contain an entire copy of the codebase from
> which y
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some
> > backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as
> >
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Have they modified these packages?
> >
> > Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
>
> What happens to the maintainer field in the
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> de
I do apologise. These should plainly have been on -legal.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it.
Ah, my apologies. I'd assumed it was something that you'd probably
have thought about, so I'll happily withdraw that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
A doesn't explicitly permit us to use "patch files" or any
> other work based on A for the purpose of modifying the sources of
> another program, in our case B.
If the license forbids the use of modified code in other works, then
it's plainly not a free license.
--
Ma
(I can provide links if you can't believe me).
Sven has insulted me and accused me of engaging in a conspiracy against
him and his employers in order to cover up my own incompetence on more
than one occasion without any hint of an apology.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
er than wasting list bandwidth, please consult a solicitor.
I have absolutely no interest in starting legal action against Sven.
And rather than wasting /my/ bandwidth, would you please not Cc me on
replies?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
hibaut Varene - are you sure you're not
confused?
Friendly,
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nto user configuration. In a lot of cases, you
want PM policy to be definable by the person carrying the computer
around, even if they don't have administrative access.
I've got some amount of code for doing most of these things, but it's
very heavily a post-Sarge thing - it
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, well, tough luck for him. That said, he can take over the
> package when he's a DD. I need it now, but I don't insist on
> maintaining it.
I'm curious - what functionality do you need that isn't present in the
y architectures is basically
impossible then we may have problems.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m before making up his mind. This way the decition is
> taken by an elected person, based on the available input from the
> relevant teams.
Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
technical committee.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
email.
Problems with communication come from both sides. If you're rude to
people, they become less likely to do useful stuff for you.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
