FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:24 PM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

jeff wrote:

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

jeff wrote:


"We try to always do the right thing, and provide only free and open
source

software." [1]

It's simply not true and the author of that (Rahul Sundaram I
think--he writes it everywhere else too)


Sorry. That's not me. Don't blame me unnecessarily. Besides what is
the right thing varies depending on the context and is a subjective
thing.


Ah, sorry, I took a quick look at the wiki history and saw your name
there (but didn't pin down the actual line)


I edit the wiki all the time but that doesn't mean all of the content
there is written by me. You have to be more careful about who you
attribute the source.


Well I did hedge it with "Rahul Sundaram I think". The edit history is actually
lost since the wiki move (which looks soooo much nicer, btw).


I was also thinking about this quote you wrote in lwn:
"Fedora does not develop or use any proprietary software or service and doesn't
have a non-free repository either."[1]


You do know that Fedora uses and distributes proprietary software, right? Your
repo itself is non-free since it contains non-free software. (And for people
arguing for different definitions of "free" the Fedora Overview page links
directly to the FSF's definition, so that's what Fedora itself is using.[2])


rahulsundaram on lwn.net:
"Fedora does not even have a non-free repository."[3]

"Fedora doesnt endorse non-free repositories in anyway."[4]

"The Fedora Project builds a world-class Linux operating system,
consisting of entirely free (meaning both zero-cost and full source
code available) software"[5]

"Fedora Project has explicit objectives
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives) to be a Free and open source
distribution."[6]


"Kmod's are only going away in the official repository which was only including
free and open source code anyway and hence for proprietary drivers the Fedora
change makes no difference."[7]


etc....

And that's just under the lwn.net domain...

Also, I wasn't arguing about the "right thing" part of it, but the
"provide *ONLY* free and open source software" part.


Reading the whole thing in context helps. We are trying to. We might not
be there just yet but we are a doing a hell lot better than most
distributions.


Oh I agree. I mean, xandros includes crap like skype, for instance. But it's
also quite clear that Fedora *knows* it is distributing plenty of non-free
software and they are OK with that--in fact, it's part of policy.


Pissing off your best allies isn't going to achieve your
goal.


Well, I wasn't trying to piss you off, but I probably have now, by quoting you
to you! sry.


-Jeff

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/277038/
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[3] http://lwn.net/Articles/274000/
[4] http://lwn.net/Articles/207240/
[5] http://lwn.net/Articles/259255/ (this from a list)
[6] http://lwn.net/Articles/196693/
[7] http://lwn.net/Articles/277024/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:32 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 14, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I agree that the initial author of a work has as much right to
> impose the harmful GPL as any other copyright holder has to choose a
> more or less restrictive license. I'm not so sure about additional
> contributors of original work who have this choice taken away in the
> GPL case only, though.

Again, you're confused as to what the GPL does. It doesn't take any
such choice away. It's copyright law that does. BTW, think of how
many proprietary licenses used for non-libraries you know that permit
the creation and distribution of derived works you might be interested
in creating. Just to put things in perspective.

> Having the choice to contribute under the GPL or not at all
> resembles that "your money or your life" scenario you presented
> earlier.

Why do you dislike the idea of respecting others' freedoms just like
yours were respected? I can see that it might be tempting to take
away from others the rights that were given to you, but have you
thought it through to the point of realizing this position is not only
incoherent, it's immoral (as in, it evidently fails the golden rule,
for starters)

>>> if competitors were allowed to use components from Linux in
>>> commercial offerings

>> They are.

> Not in the general case.

They are. As long as they respect others' freedoms, abiding by the
terms of the license, they can charge as much money as they like for
distributing, supporting, or offering any other service related with
the software, and run a successful commercial business. Why do you
think this is not the case?

> It would be unfeasible if not technically impossible to ship a Linux
> based OS containing licensed copies of all the components needed to
> match the functionality of commercial OS versions.

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. It
appears that you're saying 'licensed copies' to refer to only
proprietary software, and 'commercial OS' as proprietary operating
system, but I wouldn't like to assume that's what you mean, because it
still renders the meaning of your full claim nonsensical. Can you
please try to rephrase what you wanted to say using different terms?

> Everyone involved may be perfectly happy to meet whatever those
> other restrictions might be, yet the GPL's harmful restrictions
> prevents the useful combination from being distributed.

You're mistaken. It's copyright law that prevents it, and it's not
because of restrictions from the GPL, it's because of the other
restrictions "everyone may be perfectly happy to meet". Evidently not
everyone, since you're so unhappy about them that you're even trying
to shift the blame onto a license that doesn't prohibit you from doing
anything.

>> Your unsatisfaction with the situation is shared by me, but your
>> blaming the GPL for unfortunate (and at times unethical) choices made
>> by others is misguided.

> How so? The harm isn't shared by less restrictive licenses.

I think we're miscommunicating. Please try to describe a specific
situation and let's try to figure out what stops you from distributing
the (theoretical) combined work you'd like to distribute.

> But the concept of victim has a preconceived notion of harm, whereas
> meeting non-GPL terms may not cause harm at all.

That's true. There are many other Free Software licenses. GPL is not
the only one. It's not even the only copyleft license.

Now, when you accept a license that deprives you from any of the four
essential freedoms, this harms you *and* everyone around. You're
shooting your own foot, but the shrapnel hurts others.

>> See? If my conviction you disputed above is wrong, then the person
>> who decides to distribute cigarettes to the kids instead of milk would
>> be behaving in accordance with moral and ethics.

> Your reasoning requires you to know that cigarettes are harmful and
> there is a body of evidence for that,

Exactly! So, you now see that your claim that the delivery channel
that makes a decision as to what to deliver is amoral didn't resist
scrutiny. Good.

> yet there is no such body of evidence that all software covered by
> non-GPL licenses is harmful,

And that's how it should be, because, again, there are many Free
Software licenses. GPL is better than others for various reasons, but
this doesn't make other Free Software licenses unethical, immoral or
harmful. You may want to have a look at especially the 5th paragraph
of http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/circular/2007-078#1

But there is a body of evidence that software that is not Free is
harmful. I wouldn't think this is a place where people would dispute
this, even if they fail to resist such software themselves.

> and
> it's not up to a distributor to make that kind of value judgment.
> They must respect the recipients right to make their own choices.

Err... Sounds like you're saying "sure, go ahead and give the kids
milk and cigarettes!"

I hope you never work at the school my daughter attends :-)

> by helping prevent a usable alternative you drive
> people directly to the monster

There's a faulty assumption in your reasoning. What do you assume is
not usable about this 100% Free operating system I've installed on my
computer? Heck, even wireless works.

And then, it's not like I'd drive people to the monster. If they're
already prisoners, they might remain so a bit longer (like a former
prisoner in Brazil who wanted to return to prison because life out
there was too painful. Serious!, it actually happened), or they might
join us in developing and promoting replacements, such that fewer
people end up deciding to give up their freedoms because it's too
difficult.

Besides, it doens't even make sense. How would my preference for
offering people the option of choosing freedom lead them to the
monster any more than not offering them this option would?

(I do acknowledge that switching from say MS-Windows to say Ubuntu or
Fedora is a step towards freedom, but if it comes along with the
notion that the non-Free Software in there is not something that one
should try to get rid of ASAP, then it not fails to help people
achieve freedom, it actually becomes an impediment for them to do so,
inasmuch as it replaces the dependency on one evil, the completely
non-Free OS, for the dependency on another, the non-Free Software
added to make the OS "usable")

> even if it is with the pretense that you aren't involved at all.

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate or imply here.
Do you think this is just a matter of "I don't want to be a part of
this?" My personal choice is just a small drop in the ocean. The
moral imperative for me to promote the idea of freedom for all
software users goes far beyond whatever individualism you might be
trying to imply here.

> These out-of-context speculations don't make any sense to me.

Drivers under NDA aren't speculations.

> What if there is only one such device and the binary driver works
> perfectly and never needs a change?

And you complain about *my* speculations? Heh...

Show me one piece of proprietary software, and you'll have a piece of
software that doesn't work perfectly for all its users, and that at
least some users would like to be able to improve and/or fix it. It
has been like that for me, for every single piece of non-Free Software
I've ever used. Every one of them. And whoever ever met a perfect
piece of software, and still held the same opinion about it 10 years
later, please throw the first rock.

> I don't have any different feelings about trusting a company to build
> hardware than to supply software.

Me neither, actually. Unfortunately, there's a significant difference
between hardware and software: hardware may be quite difficult to get
into to improve, because the facilities needed to build it are
extremely expensive. This is beginning to change with FPGAs and home
printers of circuits, but it's still going to be a while until all the
limitations are artificial, as it is with software.

> If they want to give away the materials needed to duplicate either,
> great, but there is no moral difference related to the type of
> component.

Agreed. However, the practical difference makes the moral difference
less urgent.

>>> Agreed - it is a bad analogy. But so is freedom in terms of
>>> restrictions on software.
>>
>> How about freedom of speech? Freedom to share?

> Yes, that's the problem. If I write code that links to a GPL library
> and to any other library, I can't share it, even with someone who
> already has both other libraries.

Who's stopping you from distributing the code? I take it you think
it's the GPL, but it's not. Look for anything in the GPL that tells
you you can't do that. You won't find it. You'll only find passages
that say "you can distribute it, as long as it's all under the GPL".

Then you gotta think what it is that stops you from distributing the
other library under the GPL. There are three possible answers:

1. the other library is licensed to you in a way that grants you some
permissions (and no prohibitions), but none of which are enough to
clear you from the prohibitions established by copyright law that, by
default, won't suffice to enable you distribute the library the way
you know you otherwise could

2. you accepted the other library under technical restrictions (such
as lack of source code) that prevent you from distributing it the way
you otherwise could, even if you're not under any legal constraints
that would prevent you from doing so

3. you accepted the other library under a contract that prohibits you
from distributing it the way you otherwise could, even if the
copyright license you got over the library would have been enough for
you to do so

So, in cases 1. and 2., you see it's copyright law that gets in your
way. If it weren't for copyright law, you could just put the program
and library together and distribute them under whatever terms you
liked, regardless of what the GPL might say.

In cases 2. and 3., it was your decision to accept giving up your
freedoms that prevents you from distributing the program.

Why do you think any of these are GPL's faults?

> Please show an example of a non-GPL'd work where there has ever been a
> copyright issue related to another original work being combined
> (linking in the case of a library) where it was clear that every
> instance involved the end user having his own licensed copy of both
> parts.

Such proprietary works are licensed under severe prohibitions. Nobody
in their right mind would take the risk of trying to subvert the
prohibitions.

Now, maybe you're thinking of libraries for developers. Those are
still licensed under severe prohibitions, and at a premium for you to
be able to create your own derived works.

What are you trying to show here? What we all already know, that
non-Free Software is evil, so evil that developers simply stay away
from it unless they buy "protection"?

>>>> Unless you want to accept the unethical impositions from the copyright
>>>> holders of the other work, and help them impose them on others (along
>>>> with or separately from the GPLed work you'd like to combine with it),
>>>> that's what you should do anyway.

>>> I don't accept that the copyright holders of the other works
>>> necessarily make unethical impositions.
>>
>> They don't necessarily make them. They choose to.

> Who does?

The copyright holders of the other works. They could choose not to
make unethical impositions, but they choose to make them.

>> It's their choice.

> What choice? How do you determine that someone is harmed?

I know I have been, and I don't see why any other software users would
have been harmed any less.

>> That, along with the fact that they're harmful, is what makes them
>> unethical.

> The GPL is harmful too.

Only under your nonsensical theory that the GPL prohibits you from
doing anything. But we've already seen that it's not the GPL that
prohibits you, it's copyright law. And we've already agreed that
current copyright law is harmful.

> Take the case of the original BSD license. I did/do not consider its
> requirement for attribution to be unethical. I do consider the
> restriction of the GPL to not permit combinations with items covered
> by this license to be harmful and thus unethical.

Why did you change the wording from "requirement" to "restriction"?
It appears to me that it's this different perception about the
conditions of the two licenses that's driving you to the wrong
conclusion as to what stops you from making the uses you'd like of
GPLed software.

> Likewise, I don't consider all commercial/proprietary distributions
> to be unethical. Some provide good value for their terms.

Slavery was also profitable to the slave owners and advantageous to
those who purchased products at lower prices. This doesn't make it
ethical, though. In fact, this reasoning has *zero* to do with
ethics. Bringing more benefit than harm doesn't make something
ethical. It's not bringing intentional harm that does.

>> You're mistaken to boot. The restrictions are from copyright law, not
>> the GPL. They didn't stop Microsoft, and I doubt they would have had
>> a negative impact on Microsoft if they didn't exist.

> You are speculating that in the absence of the GPL, no freely
> redistributable code would exist.

No, I think we're failing to communicate. Such speculation wouldn't
even make sense, given that there was an existing body of Free
Software before even the GNU project started, which preceded the
creation of the GNU GPL.

> So how does that work in the case of something like a blu-ray player?

Don't even get me started on DRM :-)

>>> The way to prevent problems is to lower the bar to building
>>> competing alternatives that leave the choices up to the recipients.

>> As in, more of a bad thing is a good thing? :-)

> Absolutely. You aren't going to find perfection, so your best bet is
> having choices among imperfect things. As people make those choices,
> the bad ones go away.

Only when there are good choices to make. Consider blu-ray, or even
the existing DVD DRM. You just can't find a DVD player that isn't
part of the conspiracy. You have the feeling that you have choice,
but in reality you don't, because no matter what you pick, you always
end up with the same deprivation.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:42 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:



Have you even looked at tg3.c or it's history?



Just a quick google to find the discussion here:
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing with its note that the
corrected license was committed here:
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=49cabf49abd7676d026a61baabf 5aae9337a82be;hp=9beb1d587f690d5b2f9087f8f10c0ff9f 6b66886



They changed the kernel source then, but that doesn't mean they aren't
under obligations of the GPL since they distributed it for *years* under
the GPL.


Mistakes happen. Should all old instances disappear when a correction
is made? I doubt if it's the only correction that has been made on a
copyright over the years.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 12:42 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:


Well I did hedge it with "Rahul Sundaram I think". The edit history is
actually lost since the wiki move (which looks soooo much nicer, btw).


The old wiki is still available.

You do know that Fedora uses and distributes proprietary software,
right?


Fedora differentiates between different form of software as documented
within the licensing guidelines. FSF itself draws such lines.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

Certain forms of software being non modifiable is perfectly ok according
to FSF. One could argue that FSF draws the lines correctly and Fedora
does not but then it isn't merely free vs non-free anymore at that point.



Pissing off your best allies isn't going to achieve your goal.


Well, I wasn't trying to piss you off, but I probably have now, by
quoting you to you! sry.


I wasn't talking about me personally. I am talking about Fedora as a
whole but the point still stands. Fedora as a project has done more to
promote free software than most mainstream distributions. We aren't
perfect however and that is well known.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:15 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Once upon a time, jeff <moe@blagblagblag.org> said:
> The firmware hasn't always been known to be non-GPL. It was distributed for
> years under the GPL, so it *is* GPL, but they are violating the GPL by not
> shipping the source code.

They distributed a string of hex digits in a source file that said it
was GPL. Where does it say they have to give you anything else?

If I "dd if=/dev/random bs=16 count=1 | md5sum" and include the output
in a GPL source file, you don't get to demand my entropy pool.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:17 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Once upon a time, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> said:
> It is indeed my viewpoint that the 'bzImage' kernel image we ship is
> either a derivative or collective work based on the GPL'd kernel source
> code.

The compiled kernel image is just a mechanical production from the
source and does not have copyright of its own. This is no different
than running mkisofs to build a CD; you can have GPL and non-GPL-compat
software on the CD. It is mere aggregation.

--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:18 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

David Woodhouse wrote:


Do do have an exact definition of what is not permitted?

I pasted a precise definition of 'collective work' already, didn't I?

That is unrelated to the question.


No, it is the answer to your question. You asked what is not permitted.


And you are ignoring the explicit permission for aggregation.


What's not permitted is distribution of a collective work including the
GPL'd Program, where the other independent and separate parts of that
work are not also available under the terms of the GPL.


Except when the separate parts are identifiable and not derived.


The very definition of 'collective work' is that it is an aggregation of
other independent and separate works.
And aggregations are explicitly permitted which makes that discussion
irrelevant.


Oh dear, you're back to that again. I thought we'd dealt with that, but
we seem to be going round in circles. I'll try again, one last time:

All collective work is aggregation.


But only certain ones are permitted.


The GPL explicitly states that it covers collective work.


With a specific exception for aggregations.


The GPL explicitly talks about extending the permissions of the GPL to
works which are independent and separate works in themselves, when those
works are included in a collective work.

Thus, it is not credible to believe that the 'mere aggregation on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium' exception is intended to
cover _all_ aggregation. That would mean that the GPL is just setting up
all these conditions, only to immediately turn round and say "oh,
actually I didn't really mean it" in the next paragraph.


No, it is not credible to believe that they explicitly say that
aggregating separate works together is permitted but they don't actually
permit it. And it's particularly not credible to believe that the
copyright holders believe the inclusion of these parts are a copyright
violation for fairly obvious reasons.



If you're willing to make that claim in public then I don't really know
why I'm bothering to talk to you. Do you have no shame?


No, I just can't ignore what the COPYING file actually says.


As you know, the GPL makes an exception for 'mere aggregation on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium'. There is some scope for
debate on precisely what is covered by that exception, but not a huge
amount.
So the relevant discussion should be about whether there is a person
that can identify the separate parts.


No, that's another complete non-sequitur from you. Where on earth did
_that_ idea come from?


You apparently didn't read the distinguishing factor:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program ..."


If you can identify the separate short stories in an anthology, do you
think that somehow means that it isn't a collective work?


"Collective work" is not a relevant issue. The question is whether or
not it is a permitted aggregation, and the way to determine this is
spelled out fairly clearly. I wouldn't expect everyone to be experts on
both kernel code and firmware, so the first step is to find some who
can identify the sections (like maybe the person who put them there...)
and make a determination if they were "derived from the Program". We
already know they are separate, since they get dumped into separate
hardware.



Actually, don't bother to answer that. Because I'm sure you'll just come
back with another complete non-sequitur rather than a real answer.


Quoting the text of the GPL is not a non-sequitur and should hardly be
necessary at this point in the conversation.



Let's just give up, eh?


Unless you want to talk about the actual GPL instead of ignoring part of
it. There is room for interpretation about determining separate
sections that are independent works, but so far you haven't addressed
that and it is the only relevant question.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:27 PM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 08:17 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> The compiled kernel image is just a mechanical production from the
> source and does not have copyright of its own.

Excellent. So I can distribute that bzImage without heed to the
provisions of copyright law? I don't need permission from the people who
wrote it at all?

The Windows kernel image is also just a mechanical production from the
Windows source code. Does that not have a copyright either? Does that
mean I can distribute Windows without heed to the provisions of
copyright law too? As long as it's only the binaries, not the source?

Complete nonsense.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Once upon a time, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> said:
> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 08:17 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > The compiled kernel image is just a mechanical production from the
> > source and does not have copyright of its own.
>
> Excellent. So I can distribute that bzImage without heed to the
> provisions of copyright law? I don't need permission from the people who
> wrote it at all?

No, just like a CD image, the copyright of the various source bits still
applies. It is not a derivative work though, only a mere aggregation.

--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-16-2008, 01:47 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Le Lun 16 juin 2008 15:35, Chris Adams a écrit :
>
> Once upon a time, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> said:
>> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 08:17 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > The compiled kernel image is just a mechanical production from the
>> > source and does not have copyright of its own.
>>
>> Excellent. So I can distribute that bzImage without heed to the
>> provisions of copyright law? I don't need permission from the people
>> who wrote it at all?
>
> No, just like a CD image, the copyright of the various source bits
> still
> applies. It is not a derivative work though, only a mere aggregation.

You don't get to decide what is "mere" aggregation and what is
collective works no matter how convenient that may be for you.

Just like the notion of "derived" works those are very specific legal
terms and they are defined by the lawmaker intent not by the technical
guy classification. What matters is not the tools used (a bunch of
bytes on a common medium, a knife) but how they are used (mere
aggregation/collective works, preparing a meal/wounding someone).

Now can you all please stop stuffing the list and have your preferred
lawyer give you a course on derived works, collective works and mere
or not mere aggregation?

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org