Linux-Advocacy Digest #172, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Dave Martel)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Dave Martel)
Re: Communism (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Linux dying (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux dying (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:10:36 -0700
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51 GMT, "Michael Allen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500;
>> >
>> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
>> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
>> >
>> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
>>
>> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens when
>> the stock hits $30.
>>
>> >And as far as
>> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
>>
>> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people for
>> using intellectual property.
>
>It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries. Books,
>movies, music, software, etc. etc. The owner of intellectual property has
>every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge people
>for the use of their property. I've always been amazed by people (such as
>some Napster users) who don't believe the IP owner has the right to charge
>for his own property. Max, do you believe people have the right to download
>music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's) approval?
>I'd like to know where you stand on this.
Are you in favor of banning ALL photocopiers because SOME people use
them to steal copyrighted material? Do you propose making it
impossible for honest people to duplicate even media that they've
created themselves? Do you think it's fair for media producers to
enjoy the benefits of the copyright laws, while using content
protection to deprive consumers of the balancing obligations that are
supposed to go with those benefits? Because that's what "content
protecion" has come to mean.
That's the short reply. If you want a longer one, John Gilmore said it
better than I ever could:
<http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
What's Wrong With Copy Protection
John Gilmore, 16 February 2001
What's wrong?
Ron Rivest asked me, "I think it would be illuminating to hear your
views on the differences between the Intel/IBM content-protection
proposals and existing practices for content protection in the TV
scrambling domain. The devil's advocate position against your position
would be: if the customer is willing to buy extra, or special,
hardware to allow him to view protected content, what is wrong with
that?"
First, I call it copy protection rather than content protection,
because "content" is such a meaningless word. What the technology
actually does is to deter copying. Such technologies have a long
history in computing, starting with the first microcomputers,
minicomputers, and workstations. Except in very small niches, all such
systems ultimately failed. Many failed because of active opposition
from their buyers, who purchased alternative products that did not
restrict copying.
There is nothing wrong with allowing people to optionally choose to
buy copy-protection products that they like. What is wrong is when:
Competing products are driven off the market
What is wrong is when people who would like products that simply
record bits, or audio, or video, without any copy protection, can't
find any, because they have been driven off the market. By restrictive
laws like the Audio Home Recording Act, which killed the DAT market.
By "anti-circumvention" laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, which EFF is now litigating. By Federal agency actions, like the
FCC deciding a month ago that it will be illegal to offer citizens the
capability to record HDTV programs, even if the citizens have the
legal right to. By private agreements among major companies, such as
SDMI and CPRM (that later end up being "submitted" as fait accompli to
accredited standards committees, requiring an effort by the affected
public to derail them). By private agreements behind the laws and
standards, such as the unwritten agreement that DAT and MiniDisc
recorders will treat analog inputs as if they contained copyrighted
materials which the user has no rights in. (My recording of my
brother's wedding is uncopyable, because my MiniDisc decks act as if I
and my brother don't own the copyright on it.)
Pioneer New Media Technologies, who builds the recently announced
recordable DVD drive for Apple, says "The major consumer applications
for recordable DVD will be home movie editing and storage and digital
photo storage". They carefully don't say "time-shifting TV programs,
or recording streaming Internet videos", because the manufacturers and
the distribution companies are in cahoots to make sure that that
capability never reaches the market. Even though it's 100% legal to do
so, under the Supreme Court's Betamax decision. Streambox built
software that let people record RealVideo streams on their hard disks;
they were sued by Real under the DMCA, and took it off the market.
According to Nomura Securities, DVD Recorder sales will exceed VCR
sales in 2004 or 2005, and also exceed DVD Player-only sales by 2005.
(http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/1000/10tdb04.htm) So by 2010 or so, few
consumers will have access to a recorder that will let them save a
copy of a TV program, or time-shift one, or let the kids watch it in
the back of the car. Is anyone commenting on that social paradigm
shift? Do we think it's good or bad? Do we get any say about it at
all?
Instead, consumers will have to pay movie/TV companies over and over
for the privilege of time-shifting or space-shifting. Even if they
have purchased the movie, and it's stored at home on their own
equipment, and they have high bandwidth access to it from wherever
they are. This concept is called "pay per use". It can't compete with
"You have the right to record a copy of what you have the right to
see". These companies can't eliminate that right legally, because it
would violate too many of the fundamentals of our society, so they are
restricting the technology so you can't exercise that right. In the
process they are violating the fundamentals on which a stable and just
society is based. But as long as society survives until after they're
dead, they don't seem to care about its long-term stability.
Companies don't disclose copy-protection restrictions
What is wrong is when companies who make copy-protecting products
don't disclose the restrictions to the consumers. Like Apple's recent
happy-happy web pages on their new DVD-writing drive, announced this
month (http://www.apple.com/idvd/). It's full of glowing info about
how you can write DVDs based on your own DV movie recordings, etc.
What it quietly neglects to say is that you can't use it to copy or
time-shift or record any audio or video copyrighted by major
companies. Even if you have the legal right to do so, the technology
will prevent you. They don't say that you can't use it to mix and
watch video tracks from various artists, the way your CD burner will.
It doesn't say that you can't copy-protect your own disks that it
burns; that's a right the big manufacturers have reserved to
themselves. They're not selling you a DVD-Authoring drive, which is
for "professional use only". They're selling you a DVD-General drive,
which cannot record the key-blocks needed to copy-protect your own
recordings, nor can a DVD-General disc be used as a master to press
your own DVDs in quantity. These distinctions are not even glossed
over; they are simply ignored, not mentioned, invisible until after
you buy the product.
It isn't just Apple who is misleading the consumer; it's epidemic.
Sony portable mini-disc recorders only come with digital input jacks,
never digital outputs. Sound checks in -- but only checks out in
low-quality analog formats. Intel touts the wonders of their TCPA
(Trusted Computing Platform Architecture). You have to read between
the lines to discover that it exists solely to spy on how you use your
PC, so that any random third party across the Internet can decide
whether to "trust" you -- the owner. TCPA isn't about reporting to you
whether you can trust your own PC (e.g. whether it has a virus), it
doesn't include that function. It exists to report to record companies
about whether you have installed any software that lets you make
copies of MP3s, or any free software to circumvent whatever feeble
copy-protection system the record company uses. Intel is pushing HDCP
(High Definition Content Protection) which is high speed hardware
encryption that runs only on the cable between the computer and its
CRT or LCD monitor. The only signal being encrypted is the one that
the user is sitting there watching, so why is it encrypted? So that
the user can't record what they can view! If the cable is tampered
with, the video chip degrades the signal to "analog VCR quality".
Intel is also pushing SDMI and CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable
Media) which would turn your own storage media (disk drives, flash
ram, zip disks, etc) into co-conspirators with movie and record
companies, to deny you (the owner of the computer and the media) the
ability to store things on those media and get them back later.
Instead some of the stored items would only come back with
restrictions wired into the extraction software -- restrictions that
are not under the control of the equipment owner, or of the law, but
are matters of contract between the movie/record companies and the
equipment/software makers. Such as, "you can't record copyrighted
music on unencrypted media". If you try to record a song off the FM
radio onto a CPRM audio recorder, it will refuse to record or play it,
because it's watermarked but not encrypted. Even when recording your
own brand-new original audio, the default settings for analog
recordings are that they can never be copied, nor ever copied in
higher fidelity than CD's, and that only one copy can be made even if
copying is ever authorized (if the other restrictions are somehow
bypassed). Intel and IBM don't tell you these things; you have to get
to Page 11 of Exhibit B-1, "CPPM Compliance Rules for DVD-Audio" on
page 45 of the 70-page "Interim CPRM/CPPM Adopters Agreement",
available only after you fill out intrusive personal questions after
following the link from http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/. All Intel
tells you that CPPM will "give consumers access to more music"
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/aw032300.htm). Lying
to your customers to mislead them into buying your products is wrong.
Scientific research is unpublishable
What is wrong is when scientific researchers are unable to study the
field or to publish their findings. Professor Ed Felten of Princeton
studied the SDMI "watermarking" systems in some detail, as part of a
public study deliberately permitted by the secretive SDMI committee,
so they could determine whether the public could crack their chosen
schemes. (SDMI would not allow EFF to join its deliberations, saying
that we had no legitimate interest in the proceedings because we
weren't a music company or a manufacturer. There are no consumer or
civil rights representatives in the SDMI consortium.) Prof. Felten was
in the New York Times last week, saying the SDMI people and
Princeton's lawyers are now telling him that he can't release his
promised details on what was wrong with these watermarking systems,
because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's OK to tell the
SDMI companies how easy it is to break their scheme, but it isn't OK
to tell the public or other scientific researchers.
Competition is prevented
What is wrong is when competitors are unable to build competing
devices or software, vying for the favor of the consumers in the free
market. Instead those devices are banned or threatened, and that
software is censored and driven underground. Such as the open-source
DeCSS and LiViD DVD player programs. Such as DVD players worldwide
that can play American "Region 1" DVDs. EFF spent more than a million
dollars last year in defending the publisher of a security magazine,
and a Norwegian teenager, from movie industry attempts to have them
censored and jailed, respectively, for publishing and writing
competing software that lets DVDs be played or copied but does not
follow the restrictive contracts that the movie studios imposed on
most players. The movie studios spent $4 million on prosecuting the
New York case alone. Few or no manufacturers are willing to put
ordinary digital audio recorders on the market -- you see lots of MP3
players but where are the stereo MP3 recorders? They've been chilled
into nonexistence by the threat of lawsuits. The ones that claim to
record, record only "voice quality monaural".
Abuse of "copyright protection" rewards monopolies
What is wrong is when the controls that are enacted to protect the
rights reserved under copyright are used for other purposes. Not to
protect the existing rights, but to create new rights at the whim of
the copyright holder. Movie companies insisted on a "region coding"
system for DVDs, because they would make less money if DVD movies were
actually tradeable worldwide under existing free-trade laws. (They
couldn't charge high theatre ticket prices if the same movie was
simultaneously available on DVDs, and they couldn't combine the ad
campaigns of the theatres and the DVDs if they waited a long time
between releasing it to theatres and releasing it to DVDs.) This
system results in the situation where a consumer can buy a DVD player
legally, buy a DVD legally, and put the two together, and the movie
won't play. The user has every legal right to view the movie, but it
won't play, because if it did, movie companies might make less money.
Similar controls exist in DVDs to prevent people from fast-forwarding
past the ads or those nonsensical "FBI Warnings".
Microsoft built some deliberately incompatible protocols into Windows
2000 so that competing Unix machines could not be used as DNS servers
in some circumstances. Microsoft released a specification but only
under an encrypted file format that claimed to require that readers
agree not to use the information to compete with them. When someone
decrypted the trivial encryption without agreeing to the terms,
Microsoft threatened to use the DMCA to sue Slashdot, the popular
free-software news web site, who published the results. (Luckily for
us, Slashdot has a backbone and said "go ahead, we'll defend that
suit" and Microsoft chickened out.) Copyright doesn't grant the right
to prevent competition, or to restrict global trade -- but somehow the
legislation that was enacted to protect copyrights is being used to do
just those things.
Social policy is created without public input
What is wrong is when social policy is created in smoke-filled back
rooms, between movie/record company executives and computer company
executives, not by open public discussion, by legislatures, and by
courts. The CPRM specification, for example, allows a distributor of a
bag of bits (who has access to software with this capability) to
decide that future recipients will not be permitted to make copies of
that bag of bits. Or that two copies are permitted, but not three.
This policy is not legally enforceable, it was not created by law. The
law says something different. But the policy will be enforced by
equipment built by all the major manufacturers, because they will be
sued by the movie/record companies if they dare to build
interoperating equipment that lets consumers make three copies, or
copies limited only by their legal rights. Is it unexpected that such
back-room policies end up favoring the parties who were in the room,
at the expense of consumers and the public?
Copyright's balance of benefits is lost
What is wrong is when the balance between the rights of creators and
the rights of freedom of speech and the press is lost. Any increase in
the rights of creators is a decrease in the public's right of free
speech and publication. Whenever copyrights are extended, the public
domain shrinks. The right of criticism, the right to dispute someone
else's rendition of the truth, is damaged. The First Amendment gives
an almost absolute right to publish; the Copyright clause gives a
limited right to prevent publication by others. Any expansion of the
right to prevent publication diminishes the right to publish. For
example, few works created after 1910 have entered the public domain,
if their owners did not abandon their copyright, because as the years
went by, the term of copyright kept getting extended. But the
copy-rights created by technological restrictions are not even
designed to end. There is nothing in the SDMI or CPRM spec that says,
"After 2100 you will be permitted to copy the movies from 1910".
Beneficiaries are a tiny fraction of society
What is wrong is that a tiny tail of "copyright protection" is wagging
the big dog of communications among humans. As Andy Odlyzko pointed
out, http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/eworld.html, see "Content is
not king" and "The history of communications and its implications for
the Internet"), "The annual movie theater ticket sales in the U.S. are
well under $10 billion. The telephone industry collects that much
money every two weeks!" Distorting the law and the technology of human
communication and computing, in order to protect the interests of
copyright holders, makes the world poorer overall. Even if it didn't
violate fundamental policies for the long-term stability of societies,
it would be the wrong economic decision.
Society can truly eliminate scarcity, but not this way!
What is wrong is that we have invented the technology to eliminate
scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those
who profit from scarcity. We now have the means to duplicate any kind
of information that can be compactly represented in digital media. We
can replicate it worldwide, to billions of people, for very low costs,
affordable by individuals. We are working hard on technologies that
will permit other sorts of resources to be duplicated this easily,
including arbitrary physical objects ("nanotechnology"; see
http://www.foresight.org). The progress of science, technology, and
free markets have produced an end to many kinds of scarcity. A hundred
years ago, more than 99% of Americans were still using outhouses, and
one out of every ten children died in infancy. Now even the poorest
Americans have cars, television, telephones, heat, clean water,
sanitary sewers -- things that the richest millionaires of 1900 could
not buy. These technologies promise an end to physical want in the
near future.
We should be rejoicing in mutually creating a heaven on earth!
Instead, those crabbed souls who make their living from perpetuating
scarcity are sneaking around, convincing co-conspirators to chain our
cheap duplication technology so that it won't make copies -- at least
not of the kind of goods they want to sell us. This is the worst sort
of economic protectionism -- beggaring your own society for the
benefit of an inefficient local industry. The record and movie
distribution companies are careful not to point this out to us, but
that is what is happening.
If by 2030 we have invented a matter duplicator that's as cheap as
copying a CD today, will we outlaw it and drive it underground? So
that farmers can make a living keeping food expensive, so that
furniture makers can make a living preventing people from having beds
and chairs that would cost a dollar to duplicate, so that builders
won't be reduced to poverty because a comfortable house can be
duplicated for a few hundred dollars? Yes, such developments would
cause economic dislocations for sure. But should we drive them
underground and keep the world impoverished to save these peoples'
jobs? And would they really stay underground, or would the natural
advantages of the technology cause the "underground" to rapidly
overtake the rest of society?
I think we should embrace the era of plenty and work out how to
mutually live in it. I think we should work on understanding how
people can make a living by creating new things and providing
services, rather than by restricting the duplication of existing
things. That's what I've personally spent ten years doing, founding a
successful free software support company. That company, Cygnus
Solutions, annually invests more than $10 million into writing
software, giving it away freely, and letting anyone modify or
duplicate it. It funds that by collecting more than $25 million from
customers, who benefit from having that software exist and be reliable
and widespread. The company is now part of Red Hat, Inc -- which also
makes its living by empowering its customers without restricting the
duplication of its work. It's no coincidence that the open source,
free software, and Linux communities are among the first to become
alarmed at copy protection. They are actively making their livings or
hobbies out of eliminating scarcity and increasing freedom in the
operating system and application software markets. They see the real
improvement in the world that results -- and the ugly reactions of the
monopolistic and oligopolistic forces that such efforts obsolete.
Converting the whole world to operate without scarcity is a huge task.
Such a large economic shift would take decades to spread through the
entire world economy, making billions of new winners and new losers.
We will be extremely lucky if by 2030 we are prepared to end scarcity
without massive social turmoil, including riots, civil unrest, and
world war. If we are to find a peaceful path to an era of plenty, we
should be starting HERE AND NOW, transforming the industries we have
already eliminated scarcity in -- text, audio, and video. Companies
that can't adjust should disappear and be replaced by those who can.
As these whole industries learn how to exist and thrive without
creating artificial scarcity, they will provide models and expertise
for other industries, which will need to change when their own
inefficient production is replaced by efficient duplication ten or
fifteen years from now. Relying on copy-protection now would send us
in exactly the wrong direction! Copy protection pretends that the law
and some fancy footwork with industrial cartels can maintain our
current economic structures, in the face of a hurricane of positive
technological change that is picking them up and sending them whirling
like so many autumn leaves.
Summary
This may be a longer discussion than you wanted, Ron, but as you can
see, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how copy protection
techologies are being foisted on an unsuspecting public. I'd like to
hear from you a similar discussion. Being devil's advocate for a
moment, why should self-interested companies be permitted to shift the
balance of fundamental liberties, risking free expression, free
markets, scientific progress, consumer rights, societal stability, and
the end of physical and informational want? Because somebody might be
able to steal a song? That seems a rather flimsy excuse. I await your
response.
John Gilmore
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Copyright 2001 John Gilmore
This document is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
your option) any later version.
This document is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this document; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307,
USA.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:10:56 -0700
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:35:29 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nice FUD spin.
FUD - isn't that a patented Microsoft technology?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 29 Mar 2001 05:51:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Communism
>You're the one that said they didn't have PlayStations. That counts
>as a harm in my book.
Most countries don't.
It's necessary to seperate the problems of Cuba into at least two parts:
-Problems with the economy
The largest, closest market to them is closed
They have relatii
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 29 Mar 2001 05:55:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
>If it doesn't, it will die. Look
>at DIVX (per use, rental charge for DVDs) for example. It wasn't convenient
>for users, was confusing in it's implementation, didn't provide value (i.e.
>was too expensive) and thus, it died a natural death in the marketplace.
>
You forget an important assumption: a properly-formed marketplace. DIVX
failed in part because it had to compete with a nonencumbered DVD standard that
also held substantial market share. This was enough to ensure that people
could get at least some of what they wanted without having to futz with DIVX.
If it were DIVX or no DVD-like item at all, how would it have played?
Like it or not, MicroSoft still commands enough of the market to be able to
impose standards that will undoubtedly affect large segments of the market.
And also, relatively limited controls on the market allow them to force it on
consumers indirectly. "OEMs! We're discontinuning 3.1, 95, 98, etc. If you
want to offer Windows binary compatibility, it's WinAbuseOfPower or nothing!"
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:01:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:47:08
>>Where is this framework?
>
>Unix.
>
>>There is none. MS .NET, Sun One, and IBM's WebServices are all in development
>>and MS has the head start.
>
>I think the real question is, "Is being brain-dead the same thing as
>having no imagination?"
>
No, but it is the functional equivalent.
Chad is the proof.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>WesTralia wrote:
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >
>> > > > > Will .NET benefit users: no.
>> > > >
>> > > > Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
>> > > > my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
>> > > > being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
>> > > > customer support chat with an American Express customer support
>> > > > representative...
>> > > > nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Psssssssst... Mr Myers... all that technology is already in place and
>> > > available, today!
>> >
>>
>> Well, you have sort of reworded your original, but here goes.
>>
>> > Psst: no it isn't.
>> >
>> > Please show me where I can have my relatives instant messaged when my
>> > plane is nearing landing.
>> >
>>
>> telephone
>>
>> > Please show me where I can get real time chat with a customer support
>> > rep from a major company from MY messenger, not their chumpy web site
>> > chat.
>> >
>>
>> telephone
>>
Microsoft's UK e-govt service unveiled
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/17934.html
In the last e-gov announcement in January, the claim was that 40
per cent of government services were already online. We rooted about
a bit and found out that the "target" had been met with some handy
reclassification of Whitehall equipment - such as telephones being
rebranded as "online media".
We expect even more creative statistics throughout the year.
===================
They fail to comment that it took Redmond, Gates was promoting it
himself, fifteen *weeks* to get four agencies online and they hope
to eventually have 682 online.
Just in time for the next millenium I figure, right before the
Hotmail.com conversion.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
