On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:04:03PM -, Chris Lamb wrote:
> If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software
> patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement
> that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME
> Foundation against this attack
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development
nor external projects using Debian funds. The only exception I can
think of is helpi
Aye aye! We should distribute a fundraising site more widely among Debian
for anyone in our community who is willing to donate to the collective
defense of our tools.
paultag
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 8:28 PM Norbert Preining
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > that the Debian Proje
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 1:38 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time
> development tasks through funding efforts.
I think that the purpose of GSoC (and other outreach programmes) is
(or should be) mainly to grow the FLOSS
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote:
> that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME
> Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours
> and, by extension, on free software in general?
Totally agreed, thanks a lot.
I have invested lots of code into Shotwell o
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote:
> For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a
> lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their
> "Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086:
>
>
> https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-la
Having read the 'claim' being made, I for one, can not see there being a case
to answer, however my experience does not cover the American patant/legal
systems. To me this looks like a classic case of patent tolling. Any and all
instaces of which SHOULD be taken into court to be struck down an
Hi
El 28 de septiembre de 2019 23:04:03 CEST, Chris Lamb
escribió:
>Dear -project,
>
>For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a
>lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their
>"Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086:
>
>https://www.gnome.org/
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
>afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
>that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
>
>So the m68k port seems to be
Dear -project,
For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a
lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their
"Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086:
https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imagin
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> > otherwise.
>
> what about
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
>> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
>> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
>> things. Sorry for that.
>
> Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people u
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
> things. Sorry for that.
Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people unless explicitly requested.
[...]
> But that’s just your personal opini
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>
> Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on mobile at
the moment though so my phone might be messing up things. Sorry for that.
> ]] John Paul Adrian
Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.
The
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 6:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>> No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
>> worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
>> this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
>> and
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Hello!
>
> On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support
> >> would
> >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> >> have already opened a tracker bug upst
Hello!
On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
>> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
>> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
>> linked t
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> otherwise.
what about keeping old contributors attracted?
--
cheers,
Holger
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
> linked the issue to BountySource
I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of
existing developers and users.
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200
...
> to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
>
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
...
> I have already talked to the DPL personall
Hi,
On 2019-09-28 11:44, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
Just for clarification, what you call "Debian Ports team" is the group
of porters working on some of the ports hosted on the "Debian Ports" [1]
service
Hello!
I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0"
to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
In the future, gcc upstream
24 matches
Mail list logo
