[bug #18218] glibc: `MSG_NOSIGNAL'

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #18218 (project hurd): classpath needs MSG_NOSIGNAL ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message posté via/par Savannah http://s

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

I had emailed Thomas in regards to this because I didn't want to start a general panic over the license. Anyway, we have a few problems in any regard (I'm a Savannah Administrator, and if we have to remove the GPL later clause, then we're in violation of Savannah's hosting policy) The any

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:52 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > > The problem stems from the fact that the GPL is a project-wide > license, it's not per-file (the CDDL and MPL are per file; they aren't > viral licenses). Simply having it in one file binds the entire project > to that license which

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:52 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and > its > * documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright > * notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the > * software, derivati

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:52 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > I had emailed Thomas in regards to this because I didn't want to start > a general panic over the license. Anyway, we have a few problems in > any regard (I'm a Savannah Administrator, and if we have to remove the > GPL later clause, th

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

I did cite one such case already, from cons.c (it appears in quite a few other files as well), and Thomas cited one as well. (3) all advertising * materials mentioning features or use of this software display the following * acknowledgement: ``This product includes software developed by the

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 18:49 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: > I did cite one such case already, from cons.c (it appears in quite a > few other files as well), and Thomas cited one as well. > > (3) all advertising > * materials mentioning features or use of this software display the > followin

Re: GPLv3 and Hurd? (also a possible license violation)

Someone please send me a simple list of each individual file name in the gnumach source tree that has a Utah copyright including advertising clause. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd