On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:46:08PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote:
> When you say the world is not made of such extremes, do you mean you
> think the long-term effects of something are always unquantifiable?
The long term effects of anything are always something left to optimism
or pessimism, according
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:18:34PM -0700, L wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote:
>>
>>> Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see
>>> it.. the same way CULTS want you to s
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:34:49PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Blah blah blah my feelers are hurt. Do I need to mail you some maxi
> pads?
Now that you mention it, shortly after this idiotic flame I started
receiving "tons" of spam.
I wonder if they're related...
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:00AM -0700, L wrote:
> Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see
> it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about
> EVERYTHING and every other religion and church is wrong.
You seem to abuse the word hypocrisy. N
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:28:19AM -0800, Ray Percival wrote:
> don't like you. You think we rank up there with baby killers. I will NEVER
> understand how that works so just FOAD and we can all be happy.
I think that "ranking" you mention is 100% your interpretation. :)
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:34:45PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > > According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary
> > > system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it
> > > is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links
>
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:51:22PM -0500, Eliah Kagan wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 12:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables
> >running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as
> >suc
Oh, the real troll just arrived (one more list where he get's to the
kill file).
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:52:34PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm not from the FSF.
>
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:47:16AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:53:30AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > > Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ?
> > > You are a
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ?
> You are a troll.
Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or
I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell.
Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude t
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:49:45PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
> > for what I said is that restrictions against com
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
> > > proprietary as proprietary even after being inform
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:35:16PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails
> from trollers like Rui Seabra?
F.Y. You are the troll.
Rui
--
Keep the Lasagna flying!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No mat
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:44:59PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> :-) that was to the guy who called you a troll right?
> I said perhaps you are a paid FSF mercenary or as you accused me
> "delusional" :-)
I wish I was paid to only work on Free Software, I'd be much more
productive.
Rui
--
Today
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:19:03AM -0600, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> i couldn't help but notice his initials are RMSS, not so far from RMS.
> perhaps this is a nome de plume for that other weaselly contrarian, mr.
> stallman.
Yet you couldn't help notice the relation with the name as being more
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:03AM +0100, Karl Sjodahl - dunceor wrote:
> This is a unmoderated list and unsubscribed people can mail to it.
If one doesn't want to hear what outsiders want to say, then perhaps
posting should be restricted to list members.
Rui
--
This statement is false.
Today i
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:12PM -0700, L wrote:
> That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco?
Right, his extreme insults are meaningless and unprovocative.
> And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too!
> You are insulting me!
Right, did the hat fit? Because I sai
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Dusty wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra only ever contributes to this list when its in a
> flame war, and always to take up a contrary point of view. He has proved
> only one thing. Trolls do exist and their primary form of communication is
>
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:15:08PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 1:03 AM, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove
> > from the cc's of your messages.
>
> Who knows?
> Perhaps He gets Paid for it, and for this violent defense
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:00:55PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > from the cc's of your messages.
> >
> > FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
>
> Yet you have no idea whether these peop
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible
> hypocritical positions. His arguments are a misleading hyperbole.
Your attitude is also indefensible and ostentiously hypocritical, with a
rudeness that only "adds"
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> from the cc's of your messages.
FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.
> If you
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:23:21PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles
> in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in
> the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing
> OpenBSD's ports tree with its installa
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
>
> The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> install a game... a game that is
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:22:35AM -0700, L wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sin
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> > I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someon
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> >From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> >
> >He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
> >non-free are distributed in the ports site.
>
> And yet, you still don't hav
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
> you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
> OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
> which we don't giv
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 07:48:26AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Who is we?
Right, of course... I won't do it alone, because to do it alone all I
have needed is quite well served by
http://www.armorlogic.com/openbsd_information_server_compatibility_list.html
But apparently there are more peop
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:53:37AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/12/20 11:28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote:
> > > I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System
&g
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:37:34PM +0530, Selva Raj wrote:
> I am looking for a HP or IBM server which can run OpenBSD Operating System
> out of the box?
>
> Any suggestions will be great useful to me.
Dear Selva,
The following list has been useful for me, but I can't make any promises
about it'
(chomp chomp) nice, thanks. More please :D
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:33:05AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Hey you said something that isnt complete bs! you get a cookie now!
>
> 1kg == 1000g! awesome!
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:44:00PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wr
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:30:32AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> blah blah blah
>
> As usual you keep repeating what you said before but it _still_ does not
> make it so.
It's not that you disagree that 1000g = 1Kg, it's how rudely you can
bash those who agree so.
Rui
--
Fnord.
Today is Swee
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:52:56AM -0700, L wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>>> For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term "covenant(ed)
>>> software". So-called "free softw
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:17:46PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> For GPL-licensed software I recommend the term "covenant(ed)
> software". So-called "free software", as rms uses the term, is
> totally dependent on the GPL, which leverages the State's monopoly on
> violence to compel modifiers o
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> while we do provide a free operating system,
> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
> makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar.
Choice quotes from
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about
> > our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
> > thing yourself.
>
> Please see
>
>http://www.gnu.org/software/emac
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:49:34PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
> >
> > Because he tends to be unfriendly.
>
> Now *that* I find humorous.
>
> I find it Kafka-esque,
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:57:53PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
> Yes this is quite silly. Stallman insists on "free" software, and
> distributions are only acceptable if they shove that software down
> the users throats in the stead of something else, thus restricting
> the users freedom.
illegal
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:23:41PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> blah blah blah
>
> have you ever wondered why openbsd doesn't do binary updates?
I'm not talking about updates, I can read C.
> maybe you are now going to be able to figure out why we don't need
> complex signing mechanisms.
You
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:37:19PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 2:46 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from
> > company policies which require digital signature o
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:23:28AM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 12/5/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Come on... twice a year and get the benefit of not being excluded from
> > company policies which require digital signature of software downl
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:59:31AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote:
> > I'm surprised that OpenBSD (the most secure OS I know of)
> > does not use it, that's all I'm saying. I also thought there would be a real
> > reason for not doing so and there may in fact be and I may just be unaware
> > of it.
>
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
> * Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-03 06:19]:
>
> > No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news.
>
> Dunno about "no harm done" there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do
> any harm is like saying Joes
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
> What happens:
> 1. I boot frw1, it becomes MASTER on all carps -> good.
> 2. I boot frw2, it becomes BACKUP on all carps except carp0, which
> becomes MASTER -> bad.
>
> Any ideas?
Do you have pass quick for carp and pfsync *befo
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Erich wrote:
> hi,
>
> i have successfully setup a carp setup with 10 carp devices. on box is
> master and another box is backup, so if the master fails the backup box
> takes over.
> i have sysctl net.inet.carp.preempt=1 and the backup box announces wit
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:49:20AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> In security, complex != good.
Yes, which is one of the reasons I personally believe Visa's PCI is an
extortion sham.
However, some hugely influential entities happen to require those
complexities, and no reason on the world will convi
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 04:31:22PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> > > OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, effici
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:35:54AM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 10:54:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Remember: OpenBSD still doesn't have a digitally signed code distribution,
> > and in some places that means it can't enter! St
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:47:46PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> OBSD is UNIX, .. SELinux is Linux. If you want a secure, efficient,
> compact OS done by folks you can trust and actually talk to, use OBSD; if
> you want 'fairly secure Linux' [which has had thousands of hand in it
> including NSA, a
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:34:03PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> As ironic as it may seem, with today being the long anticipated release
> of the very first working decompiler, the world of open source drivers
> is going to get very interesting in the near future. In a few hours,
> possibly days,
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:34:36PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote:
> The evidence indicates that Rui is not, in fact, a human
> being, but the latest (and possibly the most impressive
> to date) application of the Dada Engine.
I can mail you some biological evidence, if you want ;)
*giggle*
Rui
-
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:02PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > > > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version
via the swwitches.
>
> By the way, there is a difference between reading and writing.
> But then, you seem to actually be THAT incompetent.
>
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:25:29AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
> Damien Miller wrote:
> > To: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > Cc: J.C. Roberts; misc@openbsd.org
> > Subject: Re: The Atheros story in much fewer words
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:54:10PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
> > change a program because he has no access to the source code.
>
>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:11:38AM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
> > Good luck doing so without any source code.
> Teehee Teehee. No luck required.
> It does however take a wee bit of skill and competence.
> Actually, for exacting work, the source is a liability.
> The source tends to make assorted
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > You seem uneducated about how powerless someone is without the freedom to
> > change a program because he has no access to the source code.
>
> That is only because you are uneducated in the art of assembly and more
> importantly t
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
> >freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
> >to loose freedo
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:09:41AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote:
> On 9/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> > > | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
> >
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:38PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has
> > the freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow
> > some users to loose freedom...
>
> Hello again Rui,
>
> the US. Over here, if you own a c
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> | > >
> | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:45PM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> Your point is that the BSD license is a "wrong" because it gives people
> too much freedom. You just stated this again, even more clearly than in
> your earlier message.
No, I never said the BSD license is wrong, you said that,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:27:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> >> | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
> >>
> >> Your exact words
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:39:10AM +, Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> Rui,
>
> On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
>
> You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD licen
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> | I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
>
> Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the
> spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the
> spirit is established. I can play
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote:
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>Version 2, June 1991
>
> Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
> Everyone is permitted to cop
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
> what have this to do with Microsoft? I assume nothing. Don't let us mix up
> this topic.
It's an adaptation of an expression, it means don't bother me, go see if I'm
at (someplace I definitely am not).
> The question here is not Micro
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> | > | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
> | > | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a
lol it's always bullshit when it's not convenient to you, right?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:28:12PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Now if you'd advice people with something better than bullshit it might
> be worth it. You have proven time and time again that you have no grasp
> whatsoever on cop
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Reiner Jung wrote:
> as you are not a lawyer, you should stop to interpret any law, copyright
> questions or give any legal advice from your own interpretation.
Go see if I'm employed by Microsoft, will you?
It's in every citizen's duty to know about the
> | While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
> | code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share
> | alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
> | perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
Hi Sunnz,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> > If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
> > conditions, not the BSD ones.
>
> GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under
> certain conditions), but not re-license, right?
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any
> > reputable dictionary (legal or not),
>
> Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG.
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
>
> Hence the meaning of ALTERNATI
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choice
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
> 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
> > software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it
> >
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
> The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last
> paragraph above (starting with "Alternatively") as explicit permission
> to replace all of the previous material (starting with "Redistribution
> and use") with th
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> ^ (all line)
> > * GNU General Public License ("GPL&quo
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
> > enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license.
> So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
> code and GPL-on
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > In the case of the later 3 files,
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >> Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
> >> to the GP
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >Hi,
>
> >In order to make my mind about this subject...
>
> >You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
> &
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:15:51AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
> > Its "alternatively" not "at the same time"
> NO. You are using the word out of context, put it back in there and it
> is simple:
>
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Publ
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
> to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes)
^^^
That is false, only if software is distributed.
>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
> >> licenses.
> >> >
> >> > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two
> > > > licenses.
> > > >
> > > > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses.
> >
> > The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
>
> And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
The copyright not
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question.
> > > > Which did the user receive? The BSD granted
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can
> > get
> > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
> >
> > Noun
> > alternative (plural alternatives)
> > 1. A situation which allows a choic
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > > > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > > > lic
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
> > "at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
> > license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
> >
> > So if they chose to distribute those
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
* drivers/net/wire
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:32:25PM -0300, Rafael Almeida wrote:
> The main problem I see here is the government incentivating the
> purshase of Microsoft product. It's kinda dumb paying the guy pay to a
> company that has nothing to do witht he whole thing as a punishment
> for your crimes. It woul
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:36:57PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> &
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/07/10 10:12, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > Have you tried a -current snapshot at all?
> > > sys/dev/pci/if
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Have you tried a -current snapshot at all?
> sys/dev/pci/if_bnx.c 1.49 may be relevant.
>
> description:
>
> revision 1.49
> date: 2007/05/21 10:05:03; author: reyk; state: Exp; lines: +4 -3
> fix b
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> In the switch:
> interface GigabitEthernet0/3
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280
> switchport mode trunk
> no ip address
>
> interface GigabitE
Hi,
In the switch:
interface GigabitEthernet0/3
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,101,1280
switchport mode trunk
no ip address
interface GigabitEthernet0/6
switchport access vlan 101
no ip address
In machine A:
cat /etc/hostname.bnx0
up
cat /etc/hostname.
Thanks very much!
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:01AM +0200, Johan P. Lindstrvm wrote:
> rough translation from swedish to english of:
...
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
