bkuhn wrote:
> > I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very
> > little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those
> > last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was
> > basically dead, except for me posting revisions of RFCs. I hope
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:49:57PM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/eros-arch/2001-January/002683.html
>
> Uhm. That's not *why* they're doing it, it's how they're doing it.
> Did you get the right URL?
I thought I did -- now that message
At 03:30 PM 1/16/01 +, David Mitchell wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Subject: Re: vtbl-based SVs and sv_setsv()
> >
> > At 06:42 PM 1/13/01 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > >How is setting one SV from another going to be implemented?
> > >My (admittedly vague) recollection
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:49:57PM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
> http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/eros-arch/2001-January/002683.html
Uhm. That's not *why* they're doing it, it's how they're doing it.
Did you get the right URL?
I went to a lecture by Knuth today on Literate Programming. He's got
http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/eros-arch/2001-January/002683.html
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Subject: Re: vtbl-based SVs and sv_setsv()
>
> At 06:42 PM 1/13/01 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> >How is setting one SV from another going to be implemented?
> >My (admittedly vague) recollection was that it would be
> >something like
> >
> >void sv_setsv
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> > about it in other places is that the GPL is both a copyright license and
> > a contr
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Satisfying Stillman might be good enough for the FSF and ODSN and GNU,
> but that's quite insubstantial and superficial.
(It's Stallman; I wouldn't say anything, but I've seen that twice now.)
Note that Stallman is already satisfied with the license on
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
>> proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
> MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> about it in other plac
Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very
> little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those
> last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was
> basically dead, except for me posting revi
10 matches
Mail list logo
