On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > > chances of
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
> > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
> > chances of remaining in the archive.
> Well, did i try to delay examination ? I pos
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:16:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> No response yet to my reasonable thread, i wonder if it was the good way to
> go finally.
I'll speak up and say that your new thread appears to be fairly inclusive of
several points of concern in the QPL.
I imagine that nobody has re
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:45:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of
> > > > > "course of
> > > > > action" exactly.
>
> > > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
>
> >
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course
> > > > of
> > > > action" exactly.
> > > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
> > In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of
> > upstre
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:57:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
> >am sure
> >others keep log and can provide the info.
>
> You can't prove it and no-one can
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:33:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:
On 2004-07-20 02:11:07 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i
am sure
others keep log and can provide the info.
You can't prove it and no-one can see it because you don't keep logs.
When you get a log, things change.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:42:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> IIRC, neither of us could find a log of this incident, so can you
> please stop referring to it? Seeing as you wrote you had "no time for
Because i don't keep irc logs, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and i am sure
others keep log and can
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Thanks, but in all this
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
> >
> > If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> > you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
>
> Well, sorry, but mail writing in
On 2004-07-19 22:27:05 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
Elsewhere you thank people for not cc'ing. I am confused about what
you want.
Ok, if this is true (i have not checked) then ok. Still there may be
other
reasons to it. What is the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
> > > suggestion, so i have
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
you. I have no obligation to subject myself to this.
If you set the Mail-Followup-To header to incl
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>
> If you don't cease the sarcasm, then I'm going to stop discussing with
> you. I have no obligation t
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
>> have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
>
>If I remember correctly, both
17 matches
Mail list logo
