On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:34:36PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
> David Mackay escreveu:
>
> > >If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
> > >Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can
> > >enfor
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Pouar wrote:
> On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
>> Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
>> left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
>> projects that embrace, extend, and extinguish open ones...but does
>>
On 11/22/2014 04:50 PM, Brent Busby wrote:
> Totally agree. I agree in spirit with the GPL, that software that is
> left completely free tends to end up becoming the basis of commercial
> projects that embrace, extend, and extinguish open ones...but does
> anyone who still wants to run CDE in 2
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Rob Tomsick wrote:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
>> I believed the GNOME project (contrarily to KDE) fitted perfectly the
>> aims of the GNU organization by being based on the non-proprietary
>> toolkit GTK. Moreover, in order to improve
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:53:40 -0500
Rob Tomsick escreveu:
> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 07:34:36 PM Bruno Félix Rezende
> Ribeiro wrote:
> > That may be true for non-trivial licenses like GPLv3, but that's
> > hardly the case for very permissive licenses (like X11's), as they
> > are almost vir
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Lennert Van Alboom wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:17:34PM +, David Mackay wrote:
> > On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear
> > from autotools as possible. CDE's build system is somewhat antiquated,
> > and a rehaul would be a prudent idea
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 07:34:36 PM Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> That may be true for non-trivial licenses like GPLv3, but that's
> hardly the case for very permissive licenses (like X11's), as they are
> almost virtually identical to the public domain.
Please don't muddy the waters
Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +
David Mackay escreveu:
> >If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
> >Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can
> >enforce the license.
>
> >So don't prosecute them --- it's virtually the same, and that's all
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:17:34PM +, David Mackay wrote:
> On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear
> from autotools as possible. CDE's build system is somewhat antiquated,
> and a rehaul would be a prudent idea, but autotools is not
> appropriate. In this day and ag
I've been with the CDE project pretty much from the start. 75% of the wiki is
my work and despite my absence on IRC (new job, less time for the Internet) I
still use CDE everyday.
I don't really understand why it's so important to fork CDE. If you have deep
philosophical differences with the p
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 01:53:01 PM Edmond Orignac wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> >> Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
> >>
> >> Jon Trulson escreveu:
> >>> Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoi
Building on Solaris 11.2 SPARC, per the wiki (i.e. code from git), the
following sed command never finishes; eventually it could run the disk out of
space making parser.c arbitrarily large. Off the top of my head, I’m not good
enough with sed to see why. Given the PATH I had set, it appears th
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:39:09PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
>> Em Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:05:53 -0700 (MST)
>> Jon Trulson escreveu:
>>> Now CDE is an open source project, but we would *really* like to avoid
>>> being forced into a specific license if at all possible - this is why
>It's perfectly legal to just ignore your request.
This is your right, but it's also incredibly impolite and abrasive. It
will not facilitate good relationship with those who are actually
/contributing/ to CDE.
>If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
>Just ignore the vi
14 matches
Mail list logo
