>From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list---------- I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is there any possibility of negoiating a way out of this because I dont feel that it: a) benefits the world of users and b) makes a whole lotta sense considering that ATT has attempted to go the open route a lot more than many of the hosting platforms especially Microsoft. John --- Mumit Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Paul Garceau wrote: > > > Something I received today. > > > > If you're using gcc for U/Win release from Mumits site, please > > take note. > > Yup, FSF has found that it is in violation of GPL to distribute GCC > linked with U/WIN runtime. I'll be removing all of it when I get back > from vacation later this week, with a note explaining why for the > benefit of the users. > > Regards, > Mumit > > > > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You may change your MinGW Account Options at: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mingw-users --- "John van V." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > Maybe this is slightly off topic, but you are the source !! ;) > > I have been trying w/o success to munge perl (open2.pl) into talking to the > classic expect/ssh script. > > Perl is actually inappropriate for this application as I am working in the > site > that houses all the physical securities/bonds where you can just imagine the > level of security paranoia. > > I have in the past gotten shell to talk to perl co-process w/ read and > redirection but the syntax escapes me at the moment. > > I would be most grateful if anyone could please send me a snippet of code > showing the "read" and redirection components, saving me my nth migraine on > this project. > > TIA, John > > > > > > ===== > John van Vlaanderen > > ############################################# > # CXN, Inc. Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # > # Proud Sponsor of Perl/Unix of NY # > # http://puny.vm.com # > ############################################# > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > ____________________________________________________________ > If you need help unsubscribing or using this list in > general, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe from this list, please send the following > two-line message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], in which > your_email_address should be replaced by the address you > used when you subscribed to the list: > unsubscribe uwin-users your_email_address > end On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:46:36 -0500, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was really amused to see RMS and Eric Raymond agree for the first time > > in history where Chinese Linux companies were pirating the OS. > > I actually doubt RMS agreed that they were "pirating". I am sure he would > have used the word "copyright infringement". Pirates tend to rape, murder > and steal physical goods from people. Copyright infringement is not as bad > as any of those things. > > But, since free software licenses use copyright, copyright infringement can > happen, if the free software licenses aren't followed. > > > > The problem isn't with the artistic license; it is with the GNU license. > > So let's fix the GPL. > > It's actually a bit late to propose new RFC's to Larry about licensing. > > However, I might as well ask, what is it that you see is "broken" about the > GPL? The Artistic license needs changes because of the various > incongruencies and inconsistencies found by people in both the open source > and free software communities, and documented in RFCs. Have you found such > inconsistencies in the GPL? And, if so, how do they effect the dual license > of Perl? > > Also, note that if we use a modified version of the GPL, it will likely be > incompatible with the real GPL, which will cause big licensing problems. > So, we should likely avoid modifying the GPL itself at all costs (but > dual-licensing is of course a great idea). > > > Like, who do we know in Boston who is tough as nails (and doesn't pay for > > her own drinks)? > > I have no idea what this means. > > > My whole point is to try to prevent a schism of the free s/w community to > > make sure the world gets the best benefit from perl6. > > I don't see how such a schism would come about. Dual licensing is designed, > in part, to prevent schisms by allowing each part of the community to get > what it wants. > > The question was: "Did the old Artistic license do what we wanted?" I > argued "no" in my RFCs. Some folks argued "yes". We'll see what Larry > decides. > > -- > Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn > >
