Certified_Scanner

Start getting certified.





============================================================================================================================ Thank you Virden but sadly I have done what you recommend and still the member is not listed. The error message I get is:- Members Added - Confirmation No new people were added to your group 1 person is already a member and will not be added - view [email address] There is no way of deleting because he is listed nowhere. Cheers Eddy On Mar 25, 12:34 pm, Virden wrote: If you Invited the "missing" member, try looking in the Open Invitations list. A link to that List can be found at the top of the membership List (management tasks -> manage members). That would account for the system reporting that the member is listed. If the e- mail address is in the Open Invitations list, that means the recipient has not responded to the Invitation yet or has responded to only part of it. There are two links in an Invitation. The top one accepts your invitation to join the group. The second link is for verifying the e- mail address and obtaining a Google account and password for that email address. If the person does not already have a Google account for their e-mail address they must click both links in the invitation. If you find the e-mail address in the Open Invitations list, you could unsubscribe it and then Add it directly. You cannot re-Invite or Add an e-mail address that is in the Open Invitations list. If you Added the e-mail address of that person, instead of using an Invitation then it should appear in the membership list. Because you have already looked there and not found it, my guess is that you used an Invitation. On Mar 25, 2:10 am, Napier Quarries wrote: Morning Virden I do not want to labour the point but on there is is a member that I loaded on tohttp://groups.google.com/group/battlefieldsregionguides The address/member is not listed under members or management tasks. If one tries to re-enter the member the system says the member is is listed! The members details are [email address] I would be grateful if you can offer some advise or suggestion. Cu Eddy N On Mar 24, 11:16 pm, Virden wrote: I cannot find a clear question or a description of a problem in your message even though I read all of it carefully. On Mar 24, 3:54 am, Eddy Norris wrote: Just a observation and recommendation and as such I would urge you to receive this information in the manner it is sent! Personally I am a newcomer (does the term newbie still exist) to Groups and their operation. From the onset I signed into all the help forums and receive the mail from them. I spend time reading these errors/complaints and pay attention to the answers and believe it, a wealth of information can be obtained, for further use. I still have much to learn, no doubt will fall and bump my knees but will continue as is. I must be honest and say that I am beginning to believe that there is no fix to the problem of members not being listed on the members page or anywhere else in fact. My application is very simply, on one group I have 800 odd members and on others a 100 plus and one group where all the problem is has 3 but it should reflect 4 members. I wonder if it is worth continuing with this group, the max, we believe, members might be 200http://groups.google.com/group/battlefieldsregionguides Without being rude, can anyone afford me some help and suggestions Thanks and I feel like a captain on a inking boat - please help Miles Nordin < car ... @Ivy.NET > wrote: "js" == Joerg Schilling < Joer ... @fokus.fraunhofer.de > delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical partisan hackery: js> GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL js> also. I think this is wrong. The patent indemnification is totally different: AIUI the CDDL makes the implicit patent license explicit and that's it, but GPLv3 does that and goes further by driving in a wedge against patent pacts, somehow. Both licenses do the same using different words. They both require contributors to give a royalty-free patent usage permission for all patents owned or controlled by the contributor in case they are used by the contributed code. More is not possible. If you believe there is a noticable difference, please explain..... GPLv3 might help with NetApp <-> Oracle pact while CDDL does not. This is a big difference illustrated through a familiar and very relevant example---not sure how to do better than that, Joerg! GPLv3 does not help at all with NetApp as the CDDL already includes a patent grant with the maximum possible coverage. The interesting thing however is that the FSF (before the GPLv3 exists) claimed that the CDDL is a bad license _because_ of it's patent defense claims. Now the FSF does the same as the CDDL ;-) js> The GPLv3 is intentionally incompatible with the GPLv2 This is definitely wrong, if you dig into the detail more. Most GPLv2 programs include a clause ``or any later version'', so adding one GPLv3 file to them just makes the whole project GPLv3, and there's no real problem. You are obviously wrong here: The GPLv3 is definitevely incompatible with the GPLv2 and most software does _not_ include the "or any later clause" by intention. Obviously this clause only makes sense if you trust the FSF, which I do so I include it, but Linus apparently didn't trust them so he struck the clause long ago. Given the fact that the FSF is the biggest license/Copyright violater on code taken from the cdrtools project, it should be obvious that you cannot trust the FSF. so GPLv3 and Apache are compatible while GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not, that is true and is designed. However GPLv2 was also designed to be upgradeable, which was absolutely the FSF's intent, to achieve compatibility, and they have done so with all their old projects like gcc and gnu libc. The Apache-2.0 license grants sub-licensing, so it is one of the few licenses where the end-user or redistributor may not always get all permissions from the original author. If you however like to combine Apache-2.0 code with GPL code and do this acording to the rules written in the GPL, this is still not possible as the Apache-2.0 license does not give you the permission to change the license for code from other contributors. As a result, the only way to combine Apache-2.0 code with GPL code still is to declare the resultant work a "collective work". So there is no difference from combining CDDL code with GPL code. The usual way to accomplish license upgradeability is to delegate your copyright to the organization you trust to know the difference between ``upgrade'' and ``screw you over.'' That's the method Sun forced upon people who had to sign contributor agreements, and is also the method SFLC advises most new free software projects to adopt: don't let individual developers keep licenses, because they'll become obstinate ossified illogical partisan farts like Joerg, or will not answer email, so you can never ever change the license. OK, you just verified that you are just a troll. We need to stop the discussion here. Jörg -- EMail: joe ... @schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js ... @cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joer ... @fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs- ... @opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss