* NightStrike wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:43:44AM CET:
> On 12/17/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with
> > > > FSF approval).
> > >
> > > I'd lik
On 12/17/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
> > Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with
> > > FSF approval).
> >
> > I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen.
>
> It's not politically f
Brian Dessent wrote:
>> I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen.
>
> It's not politically feasible since official GNU projects are supposed
> to reflect the GNU project's philosophies. I seem to recall that there
> was a mandate that all official GNU projects were expected to use
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with
> > FSF approval).
>
> I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen.
It's not politically feasible since official GNU projects are supposed
to reflect the GNU p
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with
> FSF approval).
I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen.
> History shows that this could take months, or over a year to work out.
I think it's a year already :-(
> It is possible
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake
>> release is delayed because its licensing info has not
>> been updated to GPLv3 yet?
>
> Actually the reverse. Because the licensing has already been updated
> it is now delayed. Automake inst
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Bob Proulx wrote:
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake
release is delayed because its licensing info has not
been updated to GPLv3 yet?
Actually the reverse. Because the licensing has already been updated
it is now delayed. Auto
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > I thought it did, but this isn't a linking problem (as
> > in /usr/bin/ld). The problem is loading a program at start up time
> > (when loading dynamic linked libraries).
> >
> > It's only when a package builds its own libs which it dynamic links
> > to runtime, which is
