Daniel Ruoso dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300]:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other references aro
On 13-Feb-06, 14:17 (CST), Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other refer
On 13 Feb 2006, Daniel Ruoso uttered the following:
> Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
>> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me why
>> something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
>> is unpack and copy make sources is deeme
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> > is unpack and copy
Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
> grateful.
Hmmm... I
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:05:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 12 février 2006 à 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Am I in violation of the License merely by unpacking make or
> > by doing an "tla get" on my machine? If I am, why is this free -- I
> > can't even
Le dimanche 12 février 2006 à 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Am I in violation of the License merely by unpacking make or
> by doing an "tla get" on my machine? If I am, why is this free -- I
> can't even unpack the sources " with no Invariant Sections, with no
> Front-Cover T
Hi,
I have a machine with multiple user accounts on it. On that
machine, I use cryptsetup to encrypt _all_ the partitions and swap,
apart from /boot. The machine runs SELinux, to provide and enforce
privilege separation, and my working area is labelled user_work_t.
Now, I also
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just run over some problem I'd like to get discussed here, as it
> might effect wheather some GFDL documents are distributeable at
> all and thus wheather they could be included in the non-free
> section or the sarge distribution.
Please ask yo
* Bernhard R. Link:
> Consider next that this info file does not contain the advertised
> section nor contains the GFDL at all.
I think that's why there is a @copying directive in recent Texinfo
versions. You could change the Texinfo source to use it.
I just run over some problem I'd like to get discussed here, as it
might effect wheather some GFDL documents are distributeable at
all and thus wheather they could be included in the non-free
section or the sarge distribution.
Consider a (hypothetical[1]) package with some info-page having the
f
11 matches
Mail list logo
