Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
>> * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
>> track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
>> (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable.
>>
>> - Remove from th
On Sunday 25 June 2006 01:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only
> > track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree
> > (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is v
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:02 +0200
> Raphael Marichez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week,
>> every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems
>> (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:20:00 +0200
Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > You don't have to do this
> > for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case
> > you're a third party (like a courier, or the post
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 21:48 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
> >> the patches.
> > Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
>> the patches.
> Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and
> this is the most important thing on
Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200:
> Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
>> I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary
>> download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL
>> license and just
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> You don't have to do this
> for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case you're a
> third party (like a courier, or the postman) and can can simply refer
> back to Gentoo.
According to the FSF you need to provide
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:30:27 +0200
Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
> > I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a
> > binary download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with
> > the GPL license and just put some more links to the source
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:55:47 -0500 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Perhaps you should take another English class before you make a bigger
| fool out of yourself than you just did.
I don't think Gentoo developers should be making those kinds of
comments towards users, no matter how much they
Mivz alpha.spugium.net> writes:
> But if your modification is on top of the Gentoo system and your build
> your own Live cd, like Kororaa, do you have to provide all the sources
> of all the program's on the live cd?
Well, if you *modify* programs that you want to put on said live cd (like addin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
> That other people don't have a 9 line counting footer and are not
> official Gentoo developers does not say they are so much different from
> you or stupid.
> You called me selfish, childish and a M$ lover...
> Well... I'm a squatter, I t
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 17:42, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide is
> the patches.
Not really, no. As Ciaran already said, FSF seems not to think this way and
this is the most important thing on that article.
But there's a simple way
Mivz wrote:
>
> You called me selfish, childish
Whoever complains about the distribution rules from GPL after using
GPL'd source/stuff is...
> and a M$ lover...
Never said.
> Well... I'm a squatter, I try to live anarchistic and I do not prejudge
> people. And if I disagree... I certainly do
Mike Doty wrote:
> Then you miss the entire point of GPL. You "own" your code, but if you
> derive it from something that is GPL, then you must comply with the GPL.
> The GPL exists to protect the author from what you're trying to do.
> Your statement also goes against the whole concept of free s
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote:
>> Mike Doty wrote:
>>> Mivz wrote:
> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
>
> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> just to be able to publish your ad
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:42:47 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This is a common misconception. All that you really need to provide
| is the patches.
Careful with that. The GNU people say otherwise.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient
--
C
Mike Doty wrote:
> Mivz wrote:
>>> Mike Doty wrote:
Mivz wrote:
>> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
>>
>> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
>> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
>>
>
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:18 +0200, Mivz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
> > Mivz wrote:
> >>> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
> >>>
> >>> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> >>> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> Mivz wrote:
Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your ow
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
> I mean, if someone is able to create its own web page and put a binary
> download(s) of its work, then how hard is it to comply with the GPL
> license and just put some more links to the source code?
> It's like the (old?/new?) Decalogue: "You shall not steal".
>
But
Mike Doty wrote:
> Mivz wrote:
>>> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
>>>
>>> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
>>> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
>>>
> Very free. There are many project sites that will h
Mivz alpha.spugium.net> writes:
> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
>
> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
This is free as in *freedom*. GPL says that you cannot restri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey everybody.
Bugday is moving closer, and we would like to see you on Saturday 1. of
July.
We are celebrating that it once again is the first saturday of the
month. We will be serving virtual cookies to everybody who shows up :-)
So please, show up
On 6/28/06, Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
With the GPL v2, you don't need a server at all. You're perfectly
entitled to distribute the code on DVD (for example)
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 16:28, Mivz wrote:
> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
There is nothing preventing you from just publishing a patch with your name.
The problem arises only if you distribu
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:28:42PM +0200, Mivz wrote:
> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
*plonk*
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mivz wrote:
> Then I have got this one question, I don't need a answer too.
>
> How free is free software if you need a lawyer and a expensive server
> just to be able to publish your addition under your own name?
>
Very free. There are many project
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:21:45 +0200
> Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a
>> none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects
>> which is licensed under de GPL-2?
>
> If your project is l
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:21:45 +0200
Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a
> none Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects
> which is licensed under de GPL-2?
If your project is licensed under the GPL-2, you have t
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 12:47, Mivz wrote:
> So that would not be when a stage 3 install cd for the Overlay tree is
> published? Because that cd contains binary precomplied packages.
Well, IANAL and as Stuart said the last word is up to trustees, but from my
understanding, as long as the overlay
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote:
>> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
>> Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
>> licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gen
Hi,
On 6/28/06, Mivz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay t
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 11:21, Mivz wrote:
> Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
> Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
> licensed under de GPL-2? Because that is a derived distro form Gentoo
> right?
The problem there is with
Hello,
I have just read the following story, which scared me a bit:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
Does this obligation, to provide your own source, also count for a none
Gentoo developer making a overlay tree for one of his projects which is
licensed under
35 matches
Mail list logo
