Re: sed
Hi Avraham, I'd go for something more strict like: sed "s/\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\)\([^\t]*\t\t\)\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\).*/\1-\3 $1 \2/" Dotan On Saturday 19 May 2007, Avraham Rosenberg wrote: > Hi, > The problem popped up in the frame of my attempts to switch to > utf8. I opened a uxterm window with the command: > LC_TYPE=he_IL.UTF8 uxterm -sb -sl 500 -xrm 'xterm*pointerShape: > hand2' -geometry 100x40 -bg grey90 -fg black -fn > '-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--20-200-75-75-c-100-iso10646-1'& > > and tried to execute a script involving sed. > In its simplest form, it looks like: > cat v | start-end2 > where v is: > 21:45 Les elephants d'Hannibal 22:35 360° Le reportage GEO > 22:35 360° Le reportage GEO 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago > 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago 21:45 Les elephants d'Hannibal > and start-end2 is > #!/bin/sh > sed "s/\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\)\(.* > \)\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\).*/\1-\3 > $1 \2/" > > The big space in the script (2 tabs) corresponds to the two tabs between > the two columns of v > > In the uxterm window, the output was: > 21:45-22:35 Les elephants d'Hannibal ° Le reportage GEO > 22:35 360° Le reportage GEO 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago > 22:36-21:45 Les metallos de Chicago > Instead of the normal output (in the xterm window): > 21:45-22:35 Les elephants d'Hannibal > 22:35-22:36 360° Le reportage GEO > 22:36-21:45 Les metallos de Chicago > sed version: GNU sed version 4.1.5 > > Should I update/replace my sed or use some command-line option to > make it behave similarly in the two environements ? > Thanks, Avraham To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sat, May 19, 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: GPL Issue": >... > While TrollTech and MySQL both make their income from > selling proprietary licenses to GPL code in something which is > borderline extortion, >... While I agree with you philosphically (all software should be free, etc.), to be fair, there's a different way to look at what TrollTech, MySQL, and others, are doing. You can think of these software as "commercial software, which you can freely use yourself or use in free software projects". In essence, all GPL software is like that - you can only use it freely if you use it yourself (don't distribute it) or use it in free software projects. The phrase "commercial software, which you can freely use yourself or use in free software projects" might sound sinister, but it is actually much better than traditional commercial software. Here are the two most important differences (as I see them) 1. "try before you buy": For many companies (especially start-ups) up-front costs can be prohibitive. If you're trying to develop a database application, then using a commercial database requires you to buy a number of licenses in advance (for the developers, demos, and so on), which can easily eat up a lot of your seed investment). On the other hand, when using dual-licensed free/commercial database like MySQL, all your developers, demos, and so on, can use the free version, and only when the development is successfully finished, and you (and your investors) are satisfied with the results, you can go on to actually buy the software. Basically, MySQL, Qt, and similar GPL+commercial software are telling you: "Don't pay us now, when you're a start-up struggling to get on your feet - pay us later, only when you're successful and are selling your product". Sounds fair to me... 2. "allowing, and even encouraging free software": With normal commercial software, it's hard to use it to create free software. Not impossible, though: In the old days, GNU was written over commercial Unix, and today there are some Windows-specific free software. But still, requiring that your users buy some commercial software before they can use your free software usually limits its usefulness. MySQL, QT, and so on, allow and even encourage free software to be written on top of them, which is great for the free-software world. -- Nadav Har'El|Sunday, May 20 2007, 3 Sivan 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Unlike Microsoft, a restaurant would not http://nadav.harel.org.il |charge me for food with a bug! = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: GPL Issue": > >> ... >> While TrollTech and MySQL both make their income from >> selling proprietary licenses to GPL code in something which is >> borderline extortion, >> ... >> > > While I agree with you philosphically (all software should be free, etc.), > That's not it at all. If trolltech or MySQL AB want to produce a proprietary piece of software, all the best to them. My problem with their (especially MySQL AB) tactic is that of deceit. I have the same problem with RedHat's actions. If you want your product to be GPL, and sell proprietary licenses, that's fine. If you try to make the GPL sound more sinister than it is (in RedHat's case - the trademark), and try to make it sound like it covers things it does not, in reality, cover, then I'm not cool with that at all. MySQL AB will have you think that merely USING a database makes you derived work of that database seems absurd to me. They also went ahead and modified their client protocols, just so that the old clients won't work, just so that they can enhance their hold. In so doing, they are making every GPL software out there look bad. > You can think of these software as "commercial software, > which you can freely use yourself or use in free software projects". That's fine, so long as you don't call your software "free". Again, this is more of an issue with MySQL AB than with TrollTech, possibly because I haven't looked closely enough at their product to form an opinion whether a program that merely uses QT is, indeed, derived work. Personally, my own conclusion is to never assign copyrights. The way I see it, the only fair thing is if the original maker has to license the work under the same terms as everyone else. If that's not the case, then the software isn't really free. Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
Nadav Har'El wrote: > While I agree with you philosphically (all software should be free, etc.), > to be fair, there's a different way to look at what TrollTech, MySQL, and > others, are doing. I want to stress something further, in case it wasn't clear enough in my previous response. I see nothing wrong in getting paid to provide different license code for which you are the owner. I have been asked to relicense free software I wrote, and I always gave a price quote. I also always made sure the price quote was high. I also made it clear that they can get the exact same code for free, and I would love to support that code for them. I even made sure that the price quote for an hour of support is less for the free version than for the proprietary version (i.e. - the one after relicensing). This has less to do with ideology, and more to do with simple economic reasoning. If I sell a proprietary license, I am effectively nullifying the advantages of the copyleft code. As such, I need to get paid for the work invested into the free code. In other words, I charge the amount it would have cost the client to get me to implement the free version from scratch, not the amount a single license costs. The same reasoning goes for the support. You buy my time to add a feature. If I add it to the free version, then that feature enhances the existing code and I benefit from it too, which means my charge is lower. I'm saying all of this just to point out that I have done relicensing for a pay (or, more precisely, offered to do) myself. That is not the part that angers me about MySQL AB. What I don't like about it is the misrepresentation. Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is not a feature it's a bug
entering the url: http://www.my.home.url:22/ in firefox, i get: This address is restricted This address uses a network port which is normally used for purposes other than Web browsing. Firefox has canceled the request for your protection. (and a try again button that returns me to the same page) who the f*#k asked firefox to protect me ??? at least give me an otion not to be protected btw, i know firefox didn't even check if there is a ssh deamon or a web server on this port ( otherwise it would fail during dns as no such adress exists) how do i overcome this protection ? thanks erez.
Re: it is not a feature it's a bug
how do i overcome this protection ? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+address+is+restricted%22+firefox 1st hit is right on the money. thanks erez. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: it is not a feature it's a bug
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Erez D wrote: entering the url: http://www.my.home.url:22/ in firefox, i get: This address is restricted This address uses a network port which is normally used for purposes other than Web browsing. Firefox has canceled the request for your protection. (and a try again button that returns me to the same page) how do i overcome this protection ? Take a look at: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/PortBanning.html and for an interesting write up on the topic: http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/11/bypassing-mozilla-port-blocking.html -- - Josh = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firefox FoxFilter extension
Hi all, Recently I installed Firefox "FoxFilter" extension. This extension is excellent for filtering out sites that include unwanted words. I tried to add words to the defalt list that come with the installation without success. I tried to see if it is a permission problem but as far as I can see it is not. Has anyone tried to alter the default set of restricted words. Thanks in advanced, Yaron Kahanovitch = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sed
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:41:39AM +0300, Dotan Shavit wrote: > Hi Avraham, > > I'd go for something more strict like: > sed > "s/\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\)\([^\t]*\t\t\)\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\).*/\1-\3 > $1 \2/" > > Dotan > > > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Avraham Rosenberg wrote: > > Hi, > > The problem popped up in the frame of my attempts to switch to > > utf8. I opened a uxterm window with the command: > > LC_TYPE=he_IL.UTF8 uxterm -sb -sl 500 -xrm 'xterm*pointerShape: > > hand2' -geometry 100x40 -bg grey90 -fg black -fn > > '-misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--20-200-75-75-c-100-iso10646-1'& > > > > and tried to execute a script involving sed. > > In its simplest form, it looks like: > > cat v | start-end2 > > where v is: > > 21:45 Les elephants d'Hannibal 22:35 360? Le reportage GEO > > 22:35 360? Le reportage GEO 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago > > 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago 21:45 Les elephants d'Hannibal > > and start-end2 is > > #!/bin/sh > > sed "s/\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\)\(.* > > \)\([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]\).*/\1-\3 > > $1 \2/" > > > > The big space in the script (2 tabs) corresponds to the two tabs between > > the two columns of v > > > > In the uxterm window, the output was: > > 21:45-22:35 Les elephants d'Hannibal ? Le reportage GEO > > 22:35 360? Le reportage GEO 22:36 Les metallos de Chicago > > 22:36-21:45 Les metallos de Chicago > > Instead of the normal output (in the xterm window): > > 21:45-22:35 Les elephants d'Hannibal > > 22:35-22:36 360? Le reportage GEO > > 22:36-21:45 Les metallos de Chicago > > sed version: GNU sed version 4.1.5 > > > > Should I update/replace my sed or use some command-line option to > > make it behave similarly in the two environements ? > > Thanks, Avraham > > Hi Dotan, Thanks for the answer. If your message did not get too garbled on the way, you suggest to replace my \2 from "anything beyond the first hour, ending with two tab characters" to something else. I am affraid that, trying to keep the message short, I omitted some relevant information: 1-This is only part of a longer script, the preceding lines of which make sure that all the hours appear in [0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9] format and that the space is 2 tabs, indeed. 2-The question mark after 360 was, in the original text (written in ISO8859-1), the sign for degrees (hex code \0b0), and so it looked in my xterm. Passing through the mail, it became a question mark. In the uxterm, it looked very strange, but that, in my understanding, should not have affected the behaviour of sed. In fact, it did (if one deletes or replaces this character with anything else, one gets in uxterm the same ouput as in xterm). This is my real question: my script may be mistaken and give some other output than desired, but why is the behaviour in uxterm different than in xterm ? I regret my former misleading formulation. I hope it is clearer, now. Cheers, Avraham -- Please avoid sending to this address attachments in excess of 2MByte, or any Excell or Powerpoint attachments. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:00:33PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > I'm saying all of this just to point out that I have done relicensing > for a pay (or, more precisely, offered to do) myself. That is not the > part that angers me about MySQL AB. What I don't like about it is the > misrepresentation. What bothers me is releasing a buggy, low function program ONLY as GPL, and soliciting people to contribute fixes and upgrades with the clearly stated promise that the code will remain GPL (free). Then someone comes along and offers big bucks, so the same code is now released as version 2, with a dual commercial/GPL license. In one case the people who did contribute code were not offered any compensation for their work, nor were they allowed to have their work removed from the nonGPL version. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:38:00PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > Then someone comes along and offers big bucks, so the same code is > now released as version 2, with a dual commercial/GPL license. > > In one case the people who did contribute code were not offered any > compensation for their work, nor were they allowed to have their > work removed from the nonGPL version. You fail to mention whether they retained the copyright to their contributions or assigned them to someone else (presumably, whoever relicensed the code). If it's the latter, tough luck. Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 05:15:35PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > You fail to mention whether they retained the copyright to their > contributions or assigned them to someone else (presumably, whoever > relicensed the code). If it's the latter, tough luck. Actually the license states: ... retains copyright to all of the x system, and therefore can grant, at its sole discretion, the ability for . to create proprietary or Open Source (but non-GPL'd) modules which may be dynamically linked at runtime with the portions of .. That limits the rights they retained. If they had addtionally retained the rights to grant non GPL licenses to the system itself, then they could, but they specificaly did not. They also in other places rant on about how much they love and support the GPL, and their product will remain GPL, and so on. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Instally beryl on Debian unstable
I tried installing beryl on debian unstable. I then ran it using the command bery I got the following: Detected xserver: AIGLX Checking Display :0.0 ... Checking for XComposite extension : failed No composite extension beryl: No composite extension I have VT8387 VGA controller. Running lspci gives the folllowing result: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8378 [S3 UniChrome] Integrated Video (rev 01) -- Ori Idan
Re: GPL Issue
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 05:15:35PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: You fail to mention whether they retained the copyright to their contributions or assigned them to someone else (presumably, whoever relicensed the code). If it's the latter, tough luck. Actually the license states: ... retains copyright to all of the x system, and therefore can grant, at its sole discretion, the ability for . to create proprietary or Open Source (but non-GPL'd) modules which may be dynamically linked at runtime with the portions of .. That limits the rights they retained. If they had addtionally retained the rights to grant non GPL licenses to the system itself, then they could, but they specificaly did not. The license you're refering to has nothing to do with this. A contributor either assigned his copyrights to the compnay (I assume it's a company) in question or she didn't. If they did they specifically signed a document that says that they give up all rights in the contribution adn so have nothing to complaina bout, if they did not they can sue the company. What are you complaining about? (and which company is it, anyway?) They also in other places rant on about how much they love and support the GPL, and their product will remain GPL, and so on. I can perfectly see why a company that gets it's revenue from sales of licenses other then the GPL will really and truly love the concept of the GPL and personally, so long as you can either use the software under the GPL or pay up to get a non GPL license I see no moral problem with that - consider it "tax on Freedom challanged corporations", does that make you feel better? :-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm) http://www.codefidence.com Phone: +972.3.7515563 ext. 201 | Cellular: +972.52.8260388 SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +972.3.7515503 Lacking fins or tail the gefilte fish swims with great difficulty. -- A Jewish Haiku = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description of /proc/PID/* ?
Hello everyone, My quest for the answer to "Can I determine if my stdout redirected" lead me to /proc. Is there some good documentation of this FS? I'm wondering about use cases for the various information exported. For the answer, in case people wonder, here it is: """ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ cat fd_report.sh #!/bin/bash declare STDOUT="$(readlink /proc/$$/fd/1)" # Redirect stdout to stderr for the whole run. # (redirecting is fine but we still need to report status to user). exec >&2 if [ -f "$STDOUT" ]; then echo "My stdout is redirected to: $STDOUT" else echo "Running normal, stdout is at: $STDOUT" fi file "$STDOUT" """ Example run: """ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh Running normal, stdout is at: /dev/pts/3 /dev/pts/3: character special (136/3) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh >/tmp/file My stdout is redirected to: /tmp/file /tmp/file: empty """ Please note that this will not work for when stdout is redirected to other device then a "file" (char device, fifo and co.) """ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh >/dev/null Running normal, stdout is at: /dev/null /dev/null: character special (1/3) """ I would like to react differently if my output is redirected to stdout or to a file; I can think of several ways that might give leads to someone but none that actually seems "elegent", to but none Reading stdout redirection target from bash scripts ? -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler "Free as in Freedom" - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What bothers me is releasing a buggy, low function program ONLY as > GPL, and soliciting people to contribute fixes and upgrades with the > clearly stated promise that the code will remain GPL (free). > > Then someone comes along and offers big bucks, so the same code is > now released as version 2, with a dual commercial/GPL license. > > In one case the people who did contribute code were not offered any > compensation for their work, nor were they allowed to have their > work removed from the nonGPL version. Geoff, IANAL, but if you know someone who did this they are clearly in violation, and you will be right to be bothered by this, and you may - and should - report it. Consider: if I modify your buggy GPLed program I automatically[1] hold the copyright to my changes. I cannot release them under any license than GPL, nor do I agree to any other license. It stands to reason that you will have to ask me, as a copyright holder, before releasing the program, including my modifications, under another license. You can release the code to which you hold the copyright (without my modifications) under a different license. If you wrote version 1, and I contributed to version 2, then you can release version 1 under a non-GPL license, but you cannot do this with version 2 without my explicit permission. And I may want my share of profit or revenue. Another, legal, possibility is as follows: you can enter into a contract - and get paid, of course - to modify version 2, and you may *agree* not to distribute *your modifications* until your client (or employer as a special case) gives you an OK. They may never give you an OK, though *they* have the right to distribute the whole thing under GPL (and only under GPL). This may be regarded by purists as suboptimal, because your (presumably useful) modifications will not be released to the public. On the other hand, the decision lies with your client (who paid the bucks), and not with you. Other copyright holders for the original version 2 don't get any of the bucks, but you were specifically paid for your modifications, not for the work they did. Granted, your modifications would not have a right to exist without their work, but in this respect it is no different from charging money for providing FOSS support, regarded as kosher by the consensus. [1] In most countries, and provided it is not "work for hire". -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.goldshmidt.org = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 06:35:27PM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > IANAL, but if you know someone who did this they are clearly in > violation, and you will be right to be bothered by this, and you may - > and should - report it. Unfortunately I seem to be the only person of this opinion and the only one that cares. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Description of /proc/PID/* ?
Maxim Veksler wrote: Hello everyone, My quest for the answer to "Can I determine if my stdout redirected" lead me to /proc. Is there some good documentation of this FS? I'm wondering about use cases for the various information exported. man proc and if you distro is not updated: vi /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt or something very similar to that. Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm) http://www.codefidence.com Phone: +972.3.7515563 ext. 201 | Cellular: +972.52.8260388 SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +972.3.7515503 Lacking fins or tail the gefilte fish swims with great difficulty. -- A Jewish Haiku = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Description of /proc/PID/* ?
On 5/20/07, Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maxim Veksler wrote: > Hello everyone, > > My quest for the answer to "Can I determine if my stdout redirected" > lead me to /proc. Is there some good documentation of this FS? I'm > wondering about use cases for the various information exported. man proc and if you distro is not updated: vi /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt or something very similar to that. Great! "man proc" - so simple... As for use cases; here are some that google picked up. Cooler ones are welcome. http://www.samag.com/documents/s=8920/sam0311a/0311a.htm http://systhread.net/texts/199910tfsp.php http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_TCP_Tuning Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm) http://www.codefidence.com Phone: +972.3.7515563 ext. 201 | Cellular: +972.52.8260388 SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +972.3.7515503 Lacking fins or tail the gefilte fish swims with great difficulty. -- A Jewish Haiku -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler "Free as in Freedom" - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sunday, 20 בMay 2007 18:11, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > ... consider it "tax on Freedom challanged corporations", does that > make you feel better? :-) Yes, I always tend to say that these corporations pay in cash instead of lines-of-code for the right to use Free-Software. IMO the main problem is concentration of control. When some software (e.g: MySQL) reaches a critical mass, the "official" version becomes very important and version switching becomes non-trivial in terms of mindshare (while technically it may be just a recompile). At this stage, the company *may* be tempted to play various ticks to preserve its stronghold. We should all be aware of this risk and try to mitigate it as much as we can. It should be noted that this centralized model has other disadvantages to free software: - The pace of the "official" version is slowed down (single company resources + some limited comunity involvement). - The direction of development is focused on this company needs -- this means loosing potential breakthrough in other directions. - If this company suddenly has major trouble, the project will take a big blow (until/if someone restarts the GPL'ed version again). -- Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron ICQ UIN: 16527398 No, You Can't Have My Rights, I'm Still Using Them = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Description of /proc/PID/* ?
isatty ? Valery --- Maxim Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > My quest for the answer to "Can I determine if my > stdout redirected" > lead me to /proc. Is there some good documentation > of this FS? I'm > wondering about use cases for the various > information exported. > > > > For the answer, in case people wonder, here it is: > > """ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ cat fd_report.sh > #!/bin/bash > > declare STDOUT="$(readlink /proc/$$/fd/1)" > > # Redirect stdout to stderr for the whole run. > # (redirecting is fine but we still need to report > status to user). > exec >&2 > > if [ -f "$STDOUT" ]; then > echo "My stdout is redirected to: $STDOUT" > else > echo "Running normal, stdout is at: $STDOUT" > fi > > file "$STDOUT" > """ > > Example run: > """ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh > Running normal, stdout is at: /dev/pts/3 > /dev/pts/3: character special (136/3) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh > >/tmp/file > My stdout is redirected to: /tmp/file > /tmp/file: empty > """ > > Please note that this will not work for when stdout > is redirected to > other device then a "file" (char device, fifo and > co.) > > """ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/testbash$ ./fd_report.sh > >/dev/null > Running normal, stdout is at: /dev/null > /dev/null: character special (1/3) > """ > > > I would like to react differently if my output is > redirected to stdout > or to a file; > > I can think of several ways that might give leads to > someone but none > that actually seems "elegent", to but none > > > Reading stdout redirection target from bash scripts > ? > -- > Cheers, > Maxim Veksler > > "Free as in Freedom" - Do u GNU ? > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., > run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sun, May 20, 2007, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: GPL Issue": > Consider: if I modify your buggy GPLed program I automatically[1] hold > the copyright to my changes. I cannot release them under any license > than GPL, nor do I agree to any other license. It stands to reason > that you will have to ask me, as a copyright holder, before releasing > the program, including my modifications, under another license. You > can release the code to which you hold the copyright (without my > modifications) under a different license. I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as this. It is obvious that I create a free software project, let other people help and half of the code ends up to be code contributed by other people, then I don't have the right to relicense the complete project without asking everyone else. But what if I wrote 90% of the code? What about 99% of the code, with other people just sending one-line bug fixes, not new features? When someone sends you a patch for your free software project, without stating anything about copyright, what does that mean? Is he keeping his copyright and only letting you use it in the GPL software, or is he basically saying to you "hey, thanks for writing this software; I want to help you, so take this patch, no strings attached"? Perhaps some other variables, like the size of the patch (one line bug fix, vs. 1000 lines of a new feature), the development structure of the project (one main developer who get sent patches, vs. many developers cooperating in Subversion), and so on, play a role in deciding which interpretation makes sense? Of course, it's always safest to make things explicit. Large American free software organizations, like the FSF and the ASF, have gone as far as having with written forms and beurocracies which you need to fill before you're allowed to make large scale code contributions to them. But even those organizations don't apply the same level of beurocracy to small contributions: when you send a relatively-small patch to a GNU or Apache project, a maintainer just accepts it from you and applies it. It is implied that you do NOT retain your copyright on that contribution - rather the FSF or ASF does. If the FSF decides to release all its code one day using the GPL 3, nobody is going to ask me whether I agree that they do that with the bug-fix patch I contributed to Gzip a few years ago. -- Nadav Har'El|Sunday, May 20 2007, 4 Sivan 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Birthdays are good for you - the more you http://nadav.harel.org.il |have the longer you live. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instally beryl on Debian unstable
Ori Idan wrote: > Checking for XComposite extension : failed > > No composite extension > beryl: No composite extension Did you enabled Composite on xorg.conf? if so, can you send a copy of your xorg.conf file? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems connecting to wireless networks. Need some assistance.
Hi all, I got an Inellinet wireless PCMCIA card[ 1] for my Compaq Armada M300 running Kubuntu 7.04. While trying to connect to several public networks using either wlassistant or Knetworkmanager, the networks are well recognized but I cannot log in. The connection is always refused. I came across forums and wikis, found myself a little bit lost with this and at the present, I cannot determinate if the problem is related to a) drivers, b) system or c) network configuration. I performed many tests that are too long to be included in this message, but any of them are conclusive. I need some help about how to proceed. I´m pasting two outputs that I got at a friend´d network. $ iwconfig lono wireless extensions. eth0 no wireless extensions. ra0 RT61 Wireless ESSID:"makhtesh" Nickname:"" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.462 GHz Access Point: 00:0F:CB:FB:83:4A Bit Rate=24 Mb/s RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Link Quality=66/100 Signal level:-69 dBm Noise level:-103 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 $ ifconfig ra0 ra0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:A3:71:49 inet6 addr: fe80::20e:2eff:fea3:7149/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6955 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:328 errors:3 dropped:3 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:45 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:847253 (827.3 KiB) TX bytes:14720 (14.3 KiB) Interrupt:11 Links: [ 1]http://www.intellinet-network.com/html/505314.htm Thanks, Julian -- Julian Daich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2007, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: GPL Issue": > > Consider: if I modify your buggy GPLed program I automatically[1] hold > > the copyright to my changes. I cannot release them under any license > > than GPL, nor do I agree to any other license. It stands to reason > > that you will have to ask me, as a copyright holder, before releasing > > the program, including my modifications, under another license. You > > can release the code to which you hold the copyright (without my > > modifications) under a different license. > > I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as this. It is obvious that > I create a free software project, let other people help and half of the > code ends up to be code contributed by other people, then I don't have the > right to relicense the complete project without asking everyone else. Not entirely accurate. If the program you created was explicitly licensed under a BSD-style licence and the other contributions were contributed under this licence, then you, or anyone can easily change the licence to something else without asking anyone. The original code before the re-licensing remains as is, but there can be a code under a different licence (free or otherwise). > But what if I wrote 90% of the code? What about 99% of the code, with other > people just sending one-line bug fixes, not new features? > > When someone sends you a patch for your free software project, without > stating anything about copyright, what does that mean? Is he keeping his > copyright and only letting you use it in the GPL software, or is he > basically saying to you "hey, thanks for writing this software; I want to > help you, so take this patch, no strings attached"? Perhaps some other > variables, like the size of the patch (one line bug fix, vs. 1000 lines of > a new feature), the development structure of the project (one main > developer who get sent patches, vs. many developers cooperating in > Subversion), and so on, play a role in deciding which interpretation makes > sense? > > Of course, it's always safest to make things explicit. Large American free > software organizations, like the FSF and the ASF, have gone as far as > having with written forms and beurocracies which you need to fill before > you're allowed to make large scale code contributions to them. But even > those organizations don't apply the same level of beurocracy to small > contributions: when you send a relatively-small patch to a GNU or Apache > project, a maintainer just accepts it from you and applies it. It is > implied that you do NOT retain your copyright on that contribution - rather > the FSF or ASF does. If the FSF decides to release all its code one day > using the GPL 3, nobody is going to ask me whether I agree that they do > that with the bug-fix patch I contributed to Gzip a few years ago. Actually, if your code ownership was retained by you, but was made under the GPL version 2 or later, then the Free Software Foundation can decide to make it GPL version 2 alone, GPLv3 or later, GPLv3 alone, etc. That because your code is essentially multi-licensed under the GPL 2 or future versions of it. Regards, Shlomi Fish - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.shlomifish.org/ If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer. -- An Israeli Linuxer = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has Someone Stolen Debain non-free From Israel?
Hi, Somehow the Debian non-free subdirectory is missing from both the Hamakor and the debian.co.il repositories. The rest of the world seems to still have it. Is there a practical reason for this? I have been waiting for a few days to install some non-free stuff. My newly install system has yet to be tainted. See for yourselves: http://mirror.hamakor.org.il/pub/mirrors/debian/pool/ http://debian.co.il/debian/pool/ As opposed to (random mirror): http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/debian/pool/ Whatsup? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Has Someone Stolen Debain non-free From Israel?
Okay, so I think it's a bit bizarre but Hamakor's site says non-free was removed for reasons of space and says I should go to Internet Zahav's site instead. What about debian.co.il though? On Monday 21 May 2007 01:28, Chaim Keren Tzion wrote: > Hi, > > Somehow the Debian non-free subdirectory is missing from both the Hamakor > and the debian.co.il repositories. The rest of the world seems to still > have it. Is there a practical reason for this? I have been waiting for a > few days to install some non-free stuff. My newly install system has yet to > be tainted. > > See for yourselves: > http://mirror.hamakor.org.il/pub/mirrors/debian/pool/ > http://debian.co.il/debian/pool/ > > As opposed to (random mirror): > http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/debian/pool/ > > Whatsup? > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sed
On 20/05/07, Avraham Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2-The question mark after 360 was, in the original text (written in ISO8859-1), the sign for degrees (hex code \0b0), and so it looked in my xterm. Passing through the mail, it became a question mark. In the uxterm, it looked very strange, but that, in my understanding, should not have affected the behaviour of It looked right on GMail too (showing the degrees sign), so the problem with the display must have been on Dotan's side. --Amos
Re: Instally beryl on Debian unstable
Ok I did manage to enable it. Now when I start beryl I get a white screen. Trying the cube effent (holding control and alt and dragging the mouse) shows me a white cube. when I restart X (Ctrl-Alt backspace) I get gnome but without borders on windows. I tried to start window preferences from the system menu and got a message that the window manager did not register a configuratoin manager. I typed metacity at a terminal and got back my usual windows. -- Ori Idan On 5/20/07, Yehoshua (Shay) O'Hayon Suchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ori Idan wrote: > Checking for XComposite extension : failed > > No composite extension > beryl: No composite extension Did you enabled Composite on xorg.conf? if so, can you send a copy of your xorg.conf file? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When someone sends you a patch for your free software project, without > stating anything about copyright, what does that mean? Is he keeping his > copyright and only letting you use it in the GPL software, IANAL, but I think that by default the copyright is his. There is an international agreement called Berne Convention that says that once your "creative work" is "fixed" you automatically have the copyright on it and all the derivatives. You don't need to "claim" copyright. In the US (and UK, I think) it is customary to explicitly claim copyright (the US joined the Berne Convention relatively recently), so you see those copyright statements on various works. I think that in the US there is a difference w.r.t. damages and, most importantly, lawyers' fees for registered and unregistered works, so it is worth registering your copyright. Once again, IANAL, and I don't know what the actual practice is. Hmm, later this week I am going to attend another FOSS training course at work, given by an IP lawyer - I'll ask ;-). -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.goldshmidt.org = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
IANAL Nadav Har'El wrote: > I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as this. It is obvious that > I create a free software project, let other people help and half of the > code ends up to be code contributed by other people, then I don't have the > right to relicense the complete project without asking everyone else. > Just amend that to "relicense the complete project *under an incompatible license*..." to address Shlomi's nit-picking. > When someone sends you a patch for your free software project, without > stating anything about copyright, what does that mean? Is he keeping his > copyright and only letting you use it in the GPL software, Yes. That is exactly what it means. > Perhaps some other variables, > like the size of the patch (one line bug fix, vs. 1000 lines of a new > feature), the development structure of the project (one main developer who > get sent patches, vs. many developers cooperating in Subversion), and so > on, play a role in deciding which interpretation makes sense? > No, they don't. Where they do play a role, however, is on whether the patch is at all copyrightable as a separate piece of work. You can claim, and quite convincingly, that a single line patch that says: < a = b; > a += b; if a functional description of a change that needs to be done to your code, and therefor not subject to copyright protection. If that is the case, no one has copyright over the patch, and therefor the question is moot. Assuming the patch contains enough to be subject to copyright, then the copyright is the submitter's unless agreed otherwise. > Of course, it's always safest to make things explicit. Not necessarily. I can claim I own the copyright for the above patch all I want, it doesn't make it copyrightable. > Large American free > software organizations, like the FSF and the ASF, have gone as far as having > with written forms and beurocracies which you need to fill before you're > allowed to make large scale code contributions to them. That's because copyright assignment needs to be explicit, retaining copyright being the default. In other words, unless they have a clear proof that you assigned copyrights to them, you have a valid claim that you didn't. > But even those > organizations don't apply the same level of beurocracy to small contributions: > when you send a relatively-small patch to a GNU or Apache project, a > maintainer just accepts it from you and applies it. It is implied that you > do NOT retain your copyright on that contribution See above. If your patch did not contain enough to be copyrightable, then there is no copyright to retain, and thus no copyright to transfer. > - rather the FSF or ASF > does. More like - they hold the copyright for the complete work, and they added a small piece of public domain code, which means they still hold the copyright to the complete work. A gross over-simplification can claim that the Unix source code case with Novel vs. BSD is a case where so many small, probably non-copyrightable changes were made, that the entire piece turned into public domain. > If the FSF decides to release all its code one day using the GPL 3, > nobody is going to ask me whether I agree that they do that with the bug-fix > patch I contributed to Gzip a few years ago. > > Assuming that the original license said "or later", nobody needs to ask you even if you did retain copyright. The new release is allowed (in this case, explicitly) by the old license. In other words - you gave permission when you first submitted the patch. Again, IANAL. Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Has Someone Stolen Debain non-free From Israel?
Chaim Keren Tzion wrote: > Okay, so I think it's a bit bizarre but Hamakor's site says non-free was > removed for reasons of space and says I should go to Internet Zahav's site > instead. > The good news is that we have a new server in my office. We bought about 1TB of disk space for it, which is already installed, and Debian is installed on the machine. The bad news is that we appear to be having some hardware problems. I'm hoping the disk space issue will be resolved shortly. Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
On Monday, 21 בMay 2007 08:17, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > ... Lot's of valid points. > A gross over-simplification can claim that the Unix source code case > with Novel vs. BSD is a case where so many small, probably > non-copyrightable changes were made, that the entire piece turned into > public domain. Hmmm... this is a dangerous line. The Unix source lived "in the open" until ~1984 (14 years, until the AT&T split). The Linux kernel is now roughly 16 years old and is changing a lot faster (due to the Internet of course). Do we believe many individual small contributions somehow "dillutes" the GPL into public domain? I don't think copyright law work this way. -- Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron ICQ UIN: 16527398 "Emacs is a fine OS, but it lacks a good text editor" = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Issue
Oron Peled wrote: > Do we believe many individual small contributions somehow "dillutes" > the GPL into public domain? I don't think copyright law work this way. > > In a way, it does. If I start out with a GPL program that is 1,000 lines long, and through a series of patches, none of them copyrightable and no two coming from the same contributor, achieve a 2,500 lines of code program that has only 100 of the original lines, can I still honestly claim to own copyright over the piece? The reason this is not practical is because it is extremely unlikely to happen. If the patches changed the entire program, it is extremely unlikely that they will be non-copyrightable themselves. This is due to the fact that a single line patch CAN be copyrightable, if it expresses a unique idea. Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
