101–110 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true if you use vim at least once a week forever. Some people don't want to study a manual to change 1 config line. Call me crazy I know.
Yeah, maybe I'm just weird, but I like it when the down-arrow key makes the cursor go down a line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think GPL2 -> GPL3 is a valid example of that. Usually it is to dual-license with a non-open-source license or some other incompatible open-source licenses. The GPL "upgrade" clause, > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of t…
If your licence is GPLv2 only (like for example the linux kernel), there is NO upgrade path.
> > As you know, I will not assign my copyright to the FSF, > > nor to anyone else. All the code I write is GPL'ed. > > You don't need to own the copyright on any code in > > order to be able to enforce the GPL. [...] > Indeed, and in fact for a long time the copyright > was owned by me before it was assigned to the FSF. > It's not required per se, but generally speaking, > there must be a Maintainer of the Software…
That's a great summary and an eye-opener on the whole situation. Everything aside, but isn't this FSF enforcement a little too much burden for some? Does it actually change anything? (apart from giving a bad sensation when you hear "now we own the copyright of your work")
The strength of the GNU licenses depends on existing copyright laws [plural]. As the copyright holder, GNU is more likely to have standing in an arbitrary jurisdiction when seeking to enforce the license.
Whether or not enforcement is important is another matter. If it isn't, then there's nothing but a fantastic warm fuzzy in choosing GNU over a "do whatever you want" license. To put it another way, license terms like other contract terms should align with what the author is willing to go through the bother of enforcing.
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano $ git shortlog -sne --since '3 years ago'
1298 Benno Schulenberg
64 Chris Allegretta
6 Jordi Mallach
3 Mike Frysinger
3 Mike Scalora
2 Rishabh Dave
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use nano, because I didn't "get" Vim.
I hate to admit it, but that's more or less why I do as well. It's not that I don't get ViM, it's just that I don't like it. I have TRIED to force myself to use it. Something about that long reach for the Esc key? I don't know what it is really, but I just never felt comfortable using it. Emacs is such a huge monster of a program. 90% of what it does I never touch. Most of the time I just need to edit a conf file and…
You can use Control + [ as an alternative to using ESC in Vim. This solved my reluctance to reach for the ESC key in the far reaching corner of my keyboard.
This thread does remind me of nano. Maybe it is time to give it a try when editing files on servers.
don't want to sound nasty , but is anyone there using nano really ? i know it come by default in some distros but that's about it really.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for a feature-complex editor like vim, but I have never, ever gotten on with it.
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
> Benno also did not want to assign copyright to the FSF for his contributions. In Germany, you cannot legally sign away copyright (i.e. signing away your copyright is either an empty action or may even void other agreements contained in a larger contract).
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…
I don't know anything about the politics involved, and I don't even use nano (vim guy myself), but I just ran this out of curiosity: zx2c4@thinkpad ~/nano $ git shortlog -sne --since '3 years ago' 1298 Benno Schulenberg 64 Chris Allegretta 6 Jordi Mallach 3 Mike Frysinger 3 Mike Scalora 2 Rishabh Dave Seems like Benno is clearly the driving force behind the project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reviewed the discussion but I still can't understand what the controversy is about. According to the following explanatory note from the GNU project, developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project: When the developers of a program make it a GNU package, they can decide either to give the copyright to the FSF so it can enforce the GPL for the package, or else to keep the co…
>developers don't have to assign copyright to the FSF for it to be an official GNU project This is correct, but it's up to the maintainer to decide if their project will require copyright assignment from all contributors or not. I send patches to a couple of GNU projects, Guile and Guix. Guile requires copyright assignment, Guix does not. Assigning copyright to the FSF is very much unlike assigning copyright to a for…
This does not comport with my understanding of how copyright works. Once you transfer your copyright to someone, the creative work is entirely theirs. So what standing would you have to object to what they do with it? It belongs to them now, not you.
It doesn't matter what an agreement says if you don't have standing in court to enforce it.
I'm on the GNU maintainers team; I want to clarify a couple things about this: First, Nano has _not_ left the GNU project; GNU Nano still does and will continue to exist. The current maintainer of GNU Nano---Chris Allegretta---was hoping to add Benno Schulenberg as a co-maintainer, citing numerous contributions by him. Unfortunately, Benno refused to accept GNU's maintainership agreement, and so was not appointed. Be…