On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:21:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this
> > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued
>
> Do you thin
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:56:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this
> bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued
Do you think that we might have advanced more had you actually put up some
reasonable
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:32:15 +0100, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Extraordinarily poorly formatted post]
Bugger, bugger, bugger. Sorry about the atrocious layout. I'm sure
it's pretty obvious, but just in case not: everything after the first
paragraph shouldn't have been there.
--
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:06 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And i can't take you seriously as long as people like Brian are allowed to
> participate in this discussion which such low-quality contributions.
What's this part all about? If his posts really bother you that much
and
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > > On 2004-0
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Please don't bother writing to me again.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
> >
> > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG.
> "Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use
>> it and sells it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer
>> ? And how is it fairer as
Matthew> Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > > I'll get to the other t
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:55:26AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
> > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
>
> Because the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
> > > to address the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
> appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
Because the QPL'd version need not be released to wide distribution, which
results in
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed
> > to address the non-freeness of 3b:
>
> Well, in the orginal summary, there was no ment
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
>
> Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you
> move to kill this discussion now by spammi
On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please don't bother writing to me again. [...]
Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you
move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not
to contact you (despite your outrage i
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:33:19AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
> > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
>
> Because the QPL'd versi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also
> appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ?
Because the QPL'd version doesn't have to be publicly released. INRIA
can just give it to one patsy alli
18 matches
Mail list logo