As others have suggested you should file a bug report. The Chromium maintainers
do appear to take privacy seriously and have made several privacy-oriented
changes already (see e.g. this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783999)
If you need to find out how to file a bug, please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:47:06PM +0200, pm...@laposte.net wrote:
> Hi, the Debian social contract should mandate to warn users of internet
> tracking by debian packages like chromium.
I do agree that this should be filed as a bug. Please come
back
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 17:47 +0200, pm...@laposte.net wrote:
debian-user is probably not the right place for this.
The linux-elitists list is very involved with these
issues, and the list archives are open to public
examination:
http://zgp.org/m
> Hi, the Debian social contract should mandate to warn users of internet
> tracking by debian packages like chromium.
The social contract isn't easy to change, but it isn't normally
necessary to do so.
> I tried everything and I can't turn off some internet tracking features of
> chromium like
On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 17:47 +0200, pm...@laposte.net wrote:
> Hi, the Debian social contract should mandate to warn users of
> internet tracking by debian packages like chromium.
>
> I tried everything and I can't turn off some internet tracking
> features of chromium like gcm which connects to
On Jo, 14 aug 14, 09:48:45, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> A four-four draw in the technical committees should have been a call
> to open the discussion to a wider user base, not a call for one member
> of the committee to make an arbitrary decision. Things are not
> functioning correctly "up" there, even i
On 8/13/14, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:10:19PM +0200, Slavko wrote:
>> Ahoj,
>>
>> Dňa Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:01:05 +1200 Chris Bannister
>> napísal:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Our priorities are our users and free software
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:19:09AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Chris Bannister
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:24PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> >> Well, yeah, but ask any marriage counselor what
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:19:09AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Chris Bannister
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:24PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> >> Well, yeah, but ask any marriage counselor what tends to happen when
> >> one partner decides arbitrarily what
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:10:19PM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:01:05 +1200 Chris Bannister
> napísal:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> > >
> > > Our priorities are our users and free software
> > >
> > > We will be guided by the nee
Ahoj,
Dňa Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:01:05 +1200 Chris Bannister
napísal:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> >
> > Our priorities are our users and free software
> >
> > We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
> ^
>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:24PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Chris Bannister
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I consider these posts as not OT. Consider De
On 8/11/14, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:24PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Chris Bannister
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I consider these posts as not OT. Consider Debian social contract:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:09:24PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Chris Bannister
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> >>
> >> I consider these posts as not OT. Consider Debian social contract:
> >
> > Think again.
> >
> >
> >> Our prio
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:37:24AM +0200, Slavko wrote:
>>
>> I consider these posts as not OT. Consider Debian social contract:
>
> Think again.
>
>
>> Our priorities are our users and free software
>>
>> We will be guided by the needs of
All your assumptions about me and the licence in question are plainly
wrong. I don't know how you come around knowing about my licence,
European and German law and apparently everything else better than
anyone else on the list (and probalby on earth.)
Mike McCarty wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich w
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mumia W wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not Social Security that's failing. It's your Republican President
>> and Congress that have failed. The entire problem with Social Security's
>> funding is that the President cut taxes five times.
>
This is another one of those myths perpetrated
Mumia W wrote:
Social Security is a government program. There's nothing wrong about
using taxes to support a government program.
There is something wrong with taking money away from
one person and giving it to another when the government
has no authority (see the Constitution) to do so.
And
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Are_national_retirement_programs_Ponzi_schemes.3F
That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
schemes.
What makes you think I didn't
Mumia W wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Thanks, Steve.
Indeed, thanks Steve.
Perhaps, Steve, you should have re
Steve Lamb wrote:
Erik Persson wrote:
As stated earlier, the BSD-licence requires, among other things, that:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the a
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:34:29PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Nice way to avoid the point.
>
> Nope, didn't avoid a thing. As you admit your case was constructed.
> Furthermore it did not address what I said.
>
> > You said, and I quote:
> >>> The short, sho
Mumia W wrote:
> Social Security is not highly suspect. It's not even suspect. It's
> simply the most popular social program in U.S. history.
Just because it is popular doesn't mean people don't find it suspect.
> How does protecting the poor and elderly destroy society?
Vote pandering,
On Saturday 29 April 2006 14:51, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Because of the Californians stampeding over the border to pay
> our state income taxes, pay us for room and board while they do it and in
> the end, thank us for the opportunity. Maybe you Oregonians should take
> that as a pointer? :P
We let
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
Social Security is a government program. There's nothing wrong about
using taxes to support a government program.
There is when the program is highly suspect. Like the Alaskan bridge to
nowhere.
Social Security is not highly suspect. It's not even suspe
Paul Johnson wrote:
> No, the locals are more than capable of doing that. However, we aren't able
> to defend ourselves against large swarms of Californians overrunning us.
Ahhh yes, the tired ol' "Blame the Californians" game. Tsk. See, down
here in Vegas we got that problem licked. Ever
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:34:29PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Nice way to avoid the point.
>
> Nope, didn't avoid a thing. As you admit your case was constructed.
> Furthermore it did not address what I said.
>
> > You said, and I quote:
> >>> The short, sho
On Saturday 29 April 2006 12:20, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Nice attitude. Vast portions of Oregon and parts of rural Washington led
> > the continent in unemployment for the first half of this decade. I'm
> > sure you would have rather let one in five people in the pacific
> > n
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> Nice way to avoid the point.
Nope, didn't avoid a thing. As you admit your case was constructed.
Furthermore it did not address what I said.
> You said, and I quote:
>>> The short, short form is that EICs are issued for people being
>>> irresponsible (like, h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I recall correctly when I looked at the Baen site last year, they usually
> release on book in a series online. Those that read the first book and like
> it
> will have to buy the rest of the series. Has this changed?
This is up to the author. They can put t
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Nice attitude. Vast portions of Oregon and parts of rural Washington led the
> continent in unemployment for the first half of this decade. I'm sure you
> would have rather let one in five people in the pacific northwest die of
> starvation instead.
Of course not. B
Mumia W wrote:
> Social Security is a government program. There's nothing wrong about
> using taxes to support a government program.
There is when the program is highly suspect. Like the Alaskan bridge to
nowhere.
> It's part of the upkeep of the society.
Don't buy that one, either. Qu
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:45:06PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> However when an author had the audacity to actually test the theory that
> releasing the books for free would increase sales that is exactly what
> happened. That author was Eric Flynt published by Baen. Since that day Baen
> ha
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:00:48PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > how exactly is my employee, who lost his job when his company
> > outsourced his job to the far east, being irresponsible? He was a
> > model employee, good time in, liked by all etc. Had two kids and a
>
On Friday 28 April 2006 14:03, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Friday 28 April 2006 12:24, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >>Yes, and that's why the largest government programs in history have
> >>been enacted by a Republican controlled Congress with a sitting
> >> Republican President.
>
On Friday 28 April 2006 21:00, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > how exactly is my employee, who lost his job when his company
> > outsourced his job to the far east, being irresponsible? He was a
> > model employee, good time in, liked by all etc. Had two kids and a
> > wife. No
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Are_national_retirement_programs_Ponzi_schemes.3F
That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
schemes.
What makes you think I didn't.
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
What's not to love about Ben? He was an atheist too.
Franklin? An athiest? I don't think so.
[...]
I stand corrected. I heard it someplace. Maybe it was about one of the
other founding fathers, and I got it confused.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Mumia W wrote:
> Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Are_national_retirement_programs_Ponzi_schemes.3F
> That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
> schemes.
What makes you think I didn't. I read the entir
Wulfy wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Thanks, Steve.
Indeed, thanks Steve.
Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
http
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> how exactly is my employee, who lost his job when his company
> outsourced his job to the far east, being irresponsible? He was a
> model employee, good time in, liked by all etc. Had two kids and a
> wife. Now he's shlepping burgers for me and gets EIC. How exactly i
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:18:57PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Paul D. Smith wrote:
> >What the GPL is all about is maximizing the amount of available free
> >software (where "free" is defined by the traditional freedoms to
> >examine, modify, and redistribute, as discussed on the FSF's web site).
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:24:23 -0400
Chris Metzler wrote:
>
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:53:17 -0500
>Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>> I claimed that you did not have a license, and you state that you did
>> not. You used your employer's license, which, if you were doing work
>> for your employer, is quite pro
Kent West wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
What's not to love about Ben? He was an atheist too.
Sorry about the messed up attribution. Mumia did not write the "From";
Kent did.
From
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_4.html
"In conversation wit
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:53:17 -0500
Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> I claimed that you did not have a license, and you state that you did
> not. You used your employer's license, which, if you were doing work
> for your employer, is quite proper. If you were doing your own work,
> then you probably used i
Mumia W wrote:
What's not to love about Ben? He was an atheist too.
From
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_4.html
"In conversation with familiar friends he called himself a Deist or
Theist, and he resented a sentence in Mr. Whitefield's j
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:34:42PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:42:32PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > The short, short form is that EICs
> > are issued for people being irresponsible (like, having kids while well
> > below
> > the poverty level),
>
>
> how exa
Mumia W wrote:
> Andy Streich wrote:
>
>> On Friday 28 April 2006 08:34 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> 'll respond to the very last sentence first. I don't know. But
>>> you might ask Benjamin Franklin, because he put everything he
>>> did into the Public Domain, and lobbied hard to have neither
>
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:42:32PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> The short, short form is that EICs
> are issued for people being irresponsible (like, having kids while well below
> the poverty level),
how exactly is my employee, who lost his job when his company
outsourced his job to the far east,
Andy Streich wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 08:34 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
'll respond to the very last sentence first. I don't know. But
you might ask Benjamin Franklin, because he put everything he
did into the Public Domain, and lobbied hard to have neither
Copyright nor Patent Law in the USA.
Gene Heskett wrote:
> So would I. But I'll be damned if I'll sit back and let them fix it by
> breaking the promise I was made in 1947 when I got an SS card so I
> could go to work the first time. If they can do it without upsetting
> the systems results, then I'm pretty much all for it.
Andy Streich wrote:
> That does not seem accurate. Royalties from radio play and sales are
> significant to many artists. The songwriter I heard said she makes $0.09
> (some sort of average figure) each time a song of hers is played on the radio
> and that sort of income was essential for her
Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
You know nothing of my party or it's politics. Socialists are progressive,
not conservative.
Socialists are thieves who pass off their practice under a veneer of
intellectual doublespeak.
No, Republicans are not the least bit socialist. They're anti
On Friday 28 April 2006 20:00, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> The pols of course. They are the ones who set this ponzi scheme,
>> one that would jail you or I for an extended period if we were
>> caught doing it.
>
>Then your aim is off. They are supposed to answer to the
> populat
On Friday 28 April 2006 03:34 pm, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andy Streich wrote:
> > Just the other day I was watching a Senate
> > hearing where a songwriter was saying she could not make a living without
> > the copyright and IPR laws. And I've wondered a long time about how the
> > economy might have
Gene Heskett wrote:
> The pols of course. They are the ones who set this ponzi scheme, one
> that would jail you or I for an extended period if we were caught doing
> it.
Then your aim is off. They are supposed to answer to the population so
your beef is with me.
> But thats not my proble
On Friday 28 April 2006 17:42, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Are you saying that the social security I get every month is somehow
>> free?
>
>To you? Sure is. Social Security is the only legal ponzi scam
> allowed in the US. Your Social Security payments are paid by present
> day
Steve Lamb wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Thanks, Steve.
--
Blessings
Wulfmann
Wulf Credo:
Respect the elders. Teach the young. Co-operate with the
Wulfy wrote:
> Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
> dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
> "Divided by a common language..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E
Erik Persson wrote:
> As stated earlier, the BSD-licence requires, among other things, that:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyrigh
Andy Streich wrote:
> Just the other day I was watching a Senate
> hearing where a songwriter was saying she could not make a living without the
> copyright and IPR laws. And I've wondered a long time about how the economy
> might have to change if there were no IPR. The idea has appeal in so
Steve Lamb wrote:
Christopher Nelson wrote:
My biggest problem with BSD-style licenses is that someone can take your
work, use it, and then restrict other's access to their improvements.
So the GPL restricts their freedom to do just that. That has been my main
point from the onset. It is
Steve Lamb wrote:
the only legal ponzi scam
Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
"Divided by a common language..."
--
Blessings
Wulfmann
Wulf Credo:
Respect the elders. Teach the young. Co-operate with the pack.
Play w
%% Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What the GPL is all about is maximizing the amount of available free
>> software (where "free" is defined by the traditional freedoms to
>> examine, modify, and redistribute, as discussed on the FSF's web site).
>> That goal means that some in
On Friday 28 April 2006 08:34 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 'll respond to the very last sentence first. I don't know. But
> you might ask Benjamin Franklin, because he put everything he
> did into the Public Domain, and lobbied hard to have neither
> Copyright nor Patent Law in the USA. He lost his ba
Gene Heskett wrote:
> Are you saying that the social security I get every month is somehow
> free?
To you? Sure is. Social Security is the only legal ponzi scam allowed in
the US. Your Social Security payments are paid by present day workers. Your
withholdings were spent as you earned th
On Friday 28 April 2006 08:18 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > mm> If the fit is good, then fine. For me, the fit is not good, so I
> > mm> don't use it. For people who try to make a living writing
> > mm> software, who are not members of the idle rich, and who cannot
> > mm> afford t
Christopher Nelson wrote:
> My biggest problem with BSD-style licenses is that someone can take your
> work, use it, and then restrict other's access to their improvements.
So the GPL restricts their freedom to do just that. That has been my main
point from the onset. It is not free. It is
On Friday 28 April 2006 15:29, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Well, he could, because its worse than that, 1% of the people here
>> control 90% of the wealth according to some figures I heard on
>> C-SPAN tonight in congressional testimony. Thats not right, and its
>> sure not a democra
Christopher Nelson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:18:57PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
You are looking at this incorrectly. The FSF isn't against anyone
making money. There are many ways to make money on software that does
NOT involve using a proprietary license.
Umm, do you presume to
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:40:44PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Christopher Nelson wrote:
> > With Free software, you have the right to modify, pass along code, fork,
> > distribute, and feed upstream. The only restriction on those rights is
> > that with GPL and similiar you grant them to others.
>
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 12:24, Steve Lamb wrote:
Yes, and that's why the largest government programs in history have
been enacted by a Republican controlled Congress with a sitting Republican
President.
Roosevelt was a Republican in name only and nobody disagrees with
Steve Lamb wrote:
Christopher Nelson wrote:
With Free software, you have the right to modify, pass along code, fork,
distribute, and feed upstream. The only restriction on those rights is
that with GPL and similiar you grant them to others.
And there's the rub, innit. The only restrict
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 03:18:57PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >You are looking at this incorrectly. The FSF isn't against anyone
> >making money. There are many ways to make money on software that does
> >NOT involve using a proprietary license.
>
> Umm, do you presume to speak for the FSF?
Christopher Nelson wrote:
> With Free software, you have the right to modify, pass along code, fork,
> distribute, and feed upstream. The only restriction on those rights is
> that with GPL and similiar you grant them to others.
And there's the rub, innit. The only restriction means that you
Andy Streich wrote:
On Thursday 27 April 2006 09:05 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
You seem very angry that someone doesn't like GPL. If you want
to make your software free, then do so. But don't hamper the
freedom of those to whom you give it. And don't live under
the illusion that GPL'd software is
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:32:11PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Christopher Nelson wrote:
> > Okay. The DFSG are more supportive of developer's rights.
>
> Again, not true. How exactly is a developer who releases under a non-DSFG
> license somehow lower on the totem pole of rights? Both prote
On Friday 28 April 2006 12:24, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Yes, and that's why the largest government programs in history have
> been enacted by a Republican controlled Congress with a sitting Republican
> President.
Roosevelt was a Republican in name only and nobody disagrees with that.
--
Paul Jo
Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mm> Isn't that one of the claims of most people who support the use of
mm> the GPL? That, since everyone just labors on it for love, or
mm> whatever, and that the source is available, then the quality will
mm> be better?
I
Steve Lamb wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Well, he could, because its worse than that, 1% of the people here
control 90% of the wealth according to some figures I heard on C-SPAN
tonight in congressional testimony. Thats not right, and its sure not
a democracy.
Of course it's not a democr
Steve Lamb wrote:
Christopher Nelson wrote:
Okay. The DFSG are more supportive of developer's rights.
Again, not true. How exactly is a developer who releases under a non-DSFG
license somehow lower on the totem pole of rights? Both protect the
developer's rights. Both describe exactl
%% Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mm> Isn't that one of the claims of most people who support the use of
mm> the GPL? That, since everyone just labors on it for love, or
mm> whatever, and that the source is available, then the quality will
mm> be better?
I don't know about what
Christopher Nelson wrote:
> Okay. The DFSG are more supportive of developer's rights.
Again, not true. How exactly is a developer who releases under a non-DSFG
license somehow lower on the totem pole of rights? Both protect the
developer's rights. Both describe exactly what is and is not a
Gene Heskett wrote:
> Well, he could, because its worse than that, 1% of the people here
> control 90% of the wealth according to some figures I heard on C-SPAN
> tonight in congressional testimony. Thats not right, and its sure not
> a democracy.
Of course it's not a democracy. Anyone wh
Paul Johnson wrote:
> You know nothing of my party or it's politics. Socialists are progressive,
> not conservative.
Socialists are thieves who pass off their practice under a veneer of
intellectual doublespeak.
> No, Republicans are not the least bit socialist. They're anti-public
> heal
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
I was just going to pass this over, but you have requested
that I reply, so I will.
[snip included stuff]
Mike, as I explained in another message, I used the software legally. If
I claimed that you did not have a license, and you state that you did
not. You used y
Gene Heskett wrote:
No, Republicans are not the least bit socialist. They're
anti-public healthcare, anti-public education, and think
laissez-faire economics benefits everyone instead of just the
richest 3% that control 80% of the country's wealth. Republicans
are pretty much the Socialist anti
On Thursday 27 April 2006 09:05 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
> You seem very angry that someone doesn't like GPL. If you want
> to make your software free, then do so. But don't hamper the
> freedom of those to whom you give it. And don't live under
> the illusion that GPL'd software is free.
Mike, sur
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:31:19PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
There are employers who tolerate this kind of thing, even encourage it
to a limited extent. I've spoke to managers w
Mumia W wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
[...] I do not and have not claimed ever that Linux+GNU hamper
anyone's freedom. How can an OS hamper anyone's freedom? It seems an
impossibility to me.
Mike
There you go again--bearing false witness--this time to your own words:
Look, if I make a mistak
Mike McCarty wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any
more and all work that was done with that program was more or less
lost
Mike McCarty wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any
more and all work that was done with that program was more or less
lost
Mike McCarty wrote:
"Social contract" machts nichts here. In fact, for me, the
"social contract" aspect of all Linux distros is a drawback
to them. I don't want to "change the social order" or "be
the downfall of capitalism", or "kill MicroSoft" or any of
the other "social goals" so often associa
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:31:19PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
> >There are employers who tolerate this kind of thing, even encourage it
> >to a limited extent. I've spoke to managers who tell me they'd
On Friday 28 April 2006 02:16, Hal Vaughan wrote:
>On Friday 28 April 2006 02:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Thursday 27 April 2006 22:14, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> > Well, that's really the context in which I replied. The Right Wing
>> > today in the USA are Socialists.
>>
>> You know nothing of my pa
Mike McCarty wrote:
[...] I do not and have not claimed ever that Linux+GNU hamper
anyone's freedom. How can an OS hamper anyone's freedom? It seems an
impossibility to me.
Mike
There you go again--bearing false witness--this time to your own words:
In Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Mc
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:55:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Mumia W wrote:
> > You know we're talking about contemporary American politics.
>
> Because, as we all know, this is an American list and only American
> politics matter in the world.
I, at least, was of the opinion that Right Wing
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:53:25PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Christopher Nelson wrote:
> > So you are most definately Right Wing, as the DFSG,
> > which support personal rights; changing the way 'traditional software'
> > is developed; and is not business-associated; scares and irks you so
> > gre
Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 02:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
I had it figured the other way around: he knows nothing about
Republicans. Either way, comes out the same: He's saying their similar
and in his own statement, he's showing us he doesn't understand.
I am not. If you ar
On Friday 28 April 2006 02:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 22:14, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > Well, that's really the context in which I replied. The Right Wing
> > today in the USA are Socialists.
>
> You know nothing of my party or it's politics. Socialists are
> progressive, not
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
