Greg KH wrote:
> The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
>
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
> So, what is the problem
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
> scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > wrote from scratch?
>
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:16:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > For various reasons, I've got a couple of packages that I'm not really
> > very well suited to maintain going on. I added them over the course of past
> > jobs and university cours
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> > case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> > Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
> >
> Well
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > > wrote from scratch?
> >
> > The point is that we don't feel that you *ca
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > familiarity with ebuilds.
>
> perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
f
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
> the Foundation somehow claims
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the case here? Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
> tree via bugzilla and other means? Or third-party ebuilds from joe
> shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
>
> The second case is meaningless to Ge
On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
> without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
> no?
How many angels can
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> > from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> > *them* from going GPL-3 if they thi
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, guys...
>
> *Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
> *Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?
There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch e
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> >
> > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
>
> Unless there are third party reposit
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> > wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
> > and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
> > tr
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
>
> As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
>
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no law
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> > >
> > > perhaps
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequ
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-projec
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-
Mike Doty wrote:
> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
> themselves.
Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> >
> > As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> > ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
> >
>
> This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
>
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
>> themselves.
>
> Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
>
no. it will probably be devrel who decides if someone was moderating
inappropriately.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
> would be the time.
Seems to me that this proposal doesn't solve any problem or address any
issue, and is merely a knee-jerk "well we have to do something"
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
What's the definition of "bad"?
--
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; e
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All-
>>
>> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
>> where only
>> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
>> moderate in
>> bad posts will be subject to moderatio
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
>> themselves.
>
> Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors?
>
See the council meeting logs when they're posted. Having just watched
the meeting "live," I saw that the proctors project was
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any de
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:31:31 +0200, "Bryan Østergaard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 7/12/07, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
> > only
> > devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
> > mo
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
--
Ciaran McCre
Mike Doty schrieb:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-project list will be cr
Oh, a couple more questions.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700, "Mike Doty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
> only
> devs can post
What about arch testers?
> but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
This is bad,
> This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out
> anyway) but that's a path to cross later.
If it will remove the need for -core, why not move some future -dev content
to -core, and make -dev the new list you called -project?
So, if you move discussions where non-devs ar
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
>
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
> skel.
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't
> have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have
> anything to say.
Yawn...
>
> And to give that comment a technical side:
> - Do you think that any dev will regularly check fo
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:55:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> How will moderation actually work? Whom to ask to moderate a mail?
> Just mail a random dev, at best one having to do with the issue or the
> discussion, to his [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and ask to forward the post or
> how?
Most maili
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> Most mailing list systems have a built-in provision for moderation. The
> devs who haven't been meta-moderated out (to use the Slashdot term)
> would have access to it, and could approve or reject messages from
> non-devs. I guess.
Wouldnt this allow for the following:
Devs A, B, C are arguei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
> public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
> with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
^ ^ I agree with that idea ^ ^
-
On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
That looks like a good idea to me if the mandatory c
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
> citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
> anything more.
+1
This move would be shooting Gentoo in the foot, in my opinio
Is this course of tightening all possible restrictions permanent now?
Love,
H
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moder
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
> public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
> with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives
o
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:21:40 +0200
Krzysiek Pawlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would
> the archives of -core be opened too?
That's been discussed several times in the past. Agreement has always
been that any change to the public status
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:43:57 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> > All-
> >
> > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
> > where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev
> > post. de
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
>> scratch?
>
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
> scratch" since it will require certain components, whi
Hey ;)
As an extension of it. What about this:
_All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
can do that on -project?
Greetz
-Jokey
Greg KH wrote:
>> > So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
>> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
>> >
>> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
>> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3.
>The -project mailing list ... is a required list for a dev to join.
Sorry, NOT a required list for devs to join.
Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
> where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
> themselves. in addition the g
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 01:06 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> I'd like to nominate Marien Zwarts (marienz) for the Council 2007/2008.
I would second that for sure. I received help form him in #gentoo years
before I ever became a dev. Also roger55 helped me out a few times :)
--
William L
Hi there,
This is the first time I've done this, so please bear with me. I am a
half-binary, half-source package associated with net-misc in the tree.
I am a happy, fun-loving package. I totally dig encryption and tunnels.
Most of you know me by net-misc/cisco-vpnclient-3des already. Well, my
c
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>
> Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
> through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
> citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
> anything more.
I think the id
Mike Doty wrote:
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
> only devs can post,
Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
against terrorism.
I hate it when the "rulers" think they can impose such decisions upon the
people and do n
Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over wh
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Hey ;)
>
> As an extension of it. What about this:
>
> _All_ posts from -dev go in CC to -project. Even if the posts are
> moderated, they always appear there. That way you can have a (moderated)
> subset as -dev and people who want to get their words and fights out,
> ca
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:56:24PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >> > So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
> >> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
> >> >
> >> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700
"Chrissy Fullam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
> a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not
> moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period
> expires and no one
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Let's go for censorship! Let's vote for gagging those users who don't
>> have any idea of development and those ex-devs who think they still have
>> anything to say.
>
> Yawn...
>
Hmm.
>>
>> And to give that comment a technical side:
>> - Do you th
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:55 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
> > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
> > only devs can post,
>
> Restricting freedom to post is like setting up surveilance and censorship
> against terrorism.
No, it is nothing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:10 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
>>> public, and leave -dev as it i
Am 13.07.2007 um 00:43 schrieb Chrissy Fullam:
The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion.
The
reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open
to be
viewed by the public.
Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently
due to
the
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
> the time.
"Any dev can moderate" is an illusion. Most non-dev messages are
perfectly reasonable ones and I'm pretty sure the smart devs know how
to handle fi
Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-project list will be crea
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
> I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.
> I did
> not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by
> Gentoo
> devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in
> tot
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> People with funky pictures
> - dirtyepic
As a rule I don't put pictures of myself on publically accessible
websites. That way no one knows that I'm really Wil Wheaton.
--
dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
gentoo org it could suck an
Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-project list will be crea
One additional note, my proposal doesn't account for controlling
flaming, disrespect or general asshatery (discounting outright
ridiculous things like blatantly insulting people, that's a no-no). That
I am afraid is just one of the natures of communities our size. There is
no way we can curtail p
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in additio
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition
the gentoo-project list will be created to take ov
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
> license ebuilds as GPL-2?
The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the lice
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
>
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf
Kumba wrote:
- I envisioned three mailing lists, essentially:
* core
* dev
* project
- core:private, dev-only mailing list for internal discussion
* Possibility: becomes read-only to the public after
a set time limit, possibly 1, 2,
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
I'm not sure about stuff in -core becoming publicly accessible. After
all, isn't it in the private list for a reason? Perhaps summaries of
-core discussions being forwarded to -dev would be a better option.
However, I'm new to -dev, so if this is what already happens
Kumba wrote:
Here's where we want the non-devs to get access. After all, not all
development and debugging is done by devs. All the current devs were,
at one point, users. Where did they get their start? My bet is they
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and
event
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees
list. that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> I as a developer find it very difficult to cut though what I consider
> noise to find the bits that I consider important to being able to
> continue being an effective developer on a list that I am *required* to
> be subscribed to. We have considered the likes of a moderated
Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
> copyright
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
Sorry, I should have made it clear - I was agreeing with you there. I'm
not a -dev yet, but if I continue to have the time to work towards it, I
don't want to be blocked because someone decided that users couldn't
give insights to the developers list.
Ah ha, then ye
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised this was contr
> >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> >in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
> >somewhat diff
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600:
> Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing
> list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes.
> Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev. One shit at
On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> > (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> > foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
>
> I never re
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> > >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> > >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> > >in its linked f
Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12
Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700:
> 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion
> I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement
> for subscription for all devs would
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:05 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I think the idea is being taken the wrong way. Why would you think you
> were second class?
Because this is where the development of the Gentoo Linux distribution
is discussed.
I'm not a Gentoo dev either, but I manage to make my
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
> would be the time.
Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some time
now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive.
V-Li
--
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> For far too long the mailing lists, IRC channels, and other media of
> developer communication have been ridden with belligerent,
> inconsiderate, and often-accusatory postings. However, instead of
> removing the few who cause most (if not al
91 matches
Mail list logo
