On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:54:09PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>James E Wilson writes:
>
>> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> > All true, but I want to note that the preferred non-GNU name is
>> > sourceware.org.
>>
>> What about the trademark status? Last I heard, the tr
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:01:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:57:02PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote:
>>System adminstration work is performed by overseers AT sources PERIOD redhat
>>PERIOD com
>
>overseers AT gcc PERIOD gnu PERIOD org works just as well, since it's the same
James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > All true, but I want to note that the preferred non-GNU name is
> > sourceware.org.
>
> What about the trademark status? Last I heard, the trademark holder had
> asked us to stop using the name.
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> All true, but I want to note that the preferred non-GNU name is
> sourceware.org.
What about the trademark status? Last I heard, the trademark holder had
asked us to stop using the name. That is when and why the machine got
renamed away from
James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:01, Joe Buck wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just as well, since it's the same machine by
> > a different name. On this list we should be advertising the gcc.gnu.org
> > name, I think.
>
> True. But if you want to look at
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:01, Joe Buck wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just as well, since it's the same machine by
> a different name. On this list we should be advertising the gcc.gnu.org
> name, I think.
True. But if you want to look at the mailing list archive, you have to
use the non GNU na
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:57:02PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote:
> System adminstration work is performed by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just as well, since it's the same machine by
a different name. On this list we should be advertising the gcc.gnu.org
name, I think.
I've usually
Toon Moene wrote:
Again I got a reaction of accepting write after approval (this time for
Feng Wang) as "processed by: None".
System adminstration work is performed by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You should ask them. Checking the overseers mailing list archive, I
see that the last message is an automate
Again I got a reaction of accepting write after approval (this time for
Feng Wang) as "processed by: None".
This is not encouraging - is someone reading these acceptances (despite
the "processed by: None" part) ?
FYI, Feng Wang's copyright assignment papers date from September, 2003.
Thanks in
