Linux-Advocacy Digest #482, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:00 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 05:33:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >>
>> >> I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
>> >> users from writing programs for their own use.
>> >
>> >There is no evidence one way or another for that. As the GPL states,
>> >its scope doesn't and can't cover that case. However, the FSF has
>> >been interested in making it difficult for other free software to be
>> >developed, as in the RIPEM case.
>>
>> All it does is ensure that what free software is made is actually free,
>> and remains so.
>
>The only means it has to accomplish this is to destroy the ability to
>produce other choices, even those that are less restricted. So
>those choices are taken away from us.
No, those choices don't exist. They are therefore not choices which are
denied; they are simply not choices. You may want to make something
that cannot be, a program that mixes GPL and non-GPL or whatever, but
you cannot legally do that unless you first physically do that, and then
defend your right to do that in court. You might whine that this
'suppression by threat' is somehow the GPL's fault, but the day you are
forced to pay for GPL software that you didn't want is the day your
worries will have any weight.
Every action by anyone destroys the ability for other actions to occur.
Not all restraint of trade is unreasonable restraint of trade.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:02 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 01:59:55 GMT;
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The key is there is, in fact, nothing in copyright law which actually
>>prevents this. Using private licensing contracts to gain access to
>>copyrighted works, MS could conceivably (but obviously not feasibly)
>>make just the claim you propose.
>
>I think there are some limits to what a state court can enforce
>without being found to have usurped the Congress's power to regulate
>copyright.
No court has any power to usurp Congress's power. State legislature's
don't, either. What's your point?
>Some license provisions might be found to do so.
Most contract law is state law, is what I think you're trying to say,
and therefore contracts in violation of copyright are not valid. I
agree. Prove the case in court, though, or admit you're pissing in the
wind, because there is nothing about this contract which violates either
state or federal law.
>Among the
>most problematic areas might be provisions against reverse engineering
>and provisions limiting what would otherwise be fair use.
Unless you can explain to me the Lasercomb America v. Reynolds case, you
are speaking from ignorance regarding provisions concerning limits and
reverse engineering.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>I would
>expect that some courts would consider license provisions which limit
>the copy owner's (read licensee if you will) uses also to be
>unenforceable.
It is a worthwhile claim. I would love nothing better than to have the
idea of licensing software declared invalid. But that is what it would
take to settle the matter the way these pundits claim.
>I have no idea where the line might be drawn, but for an example of
>state law getting slapped down in federal court, see
>
> Vault Cord v. Quaid Software 847 F.2d 255
>
>Here is a quote from the holding by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:
>
> "The provision in Louisiana's License Act, which permits a software
> producer to prohibit the adaptation of its licensed computer program
> by decompilation or disassembly, conflicts with the rights of computer
> program owners under § 117 and clearly "touches upon an area" of
> federal copyright law. For this reason, and the reasons set forth
> by the district court, we hold that at least this provision of
> Louisiana's License Act is preempted by federal law, and thus that the
> restriction in Vault's license agreement against decompilation or
> disassembly is unenforceable."
>
>Ultimately this is a side issue.
It sure as hell is, which makes me wonder why you brought it up so
verbosely. Perhaps a clue can be found in the fact that the meaning of
the Vault v. Quaid decision is clearly that the issue in copyright is
the bottom line, and has nothing to do with the metaphysical integrity
of any intellectual objects or property. The state statutes being
over-ridden were regarding trade secret licenses on copyrighted works,
and the federal law which over-rode them was anti-trust.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:04 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 02:52:17 GMT;
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I agree with your description of the situation; the FSF, with no
>>evidence of support in copyright law, claims that they can demand that
>>others comply with their political agenda. I'm willing agree to that
>
>A sentence like this months ago would have probably ended much of the
>discussion. Is this a change in position or is it somehow consistent
>with your previously posted positions?
My position is very consistent; this is a change in the approach to
arguing my position.
>I don't have any issues with the FSF's political agenda, so I guess
>I don't have anything left to discuss... Maybe some more copyright
>law that I disagree with...
>
>Wait a minute, what's that down below?
:-D
>>The limits are copyright. You are not allowed to use an author's work
>
>That word "use" is just too slippery.
No, really?
>We need to be more precise if
>we are trying to say that copyright is the limit.
You should obviously be able to see, then, that it would be only logical
to presume that I must have meant the precision of the word to indicate
some characteristic of the limits. And, thus, we return to my point,
which is hardly slippery in the least: the nature of copyright is
book-keeping, not metaphysics. Do whatever you want if you aren't doing
it commercially (hobbyists must obviously be careful, but scam artists
need not apply), but if you're making money on an author's efforts, you
should be able to see a line of dollars through licenses, royalties, or
whatever other fees are appropriate. Obviously, the details get
supremely complicated, but the basic idea is as simple as a single
sentence:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.
>You agree that use
>doesn't mean read but why wouldn't you be allowed to "use the code" in all
>ways other than those reserved by statute for the copyright holder.
You are, unless some other person claims that you have infringed their
copyright. THEY need to take YOU to court; you're the defendant, and
only need to provide a preponderance of evidence, not *prove* you didn't
infringe.
If you are caught infringing, and have benefited from it commercially,
you've committed a crime. But the infringement itself is a matter of
law, not morals.
>Those
>uses are broad in one sense, but in a real sense they are very narrow
>because both the copyright holders rights and the limitations of those
>rights are enumerated in the copyright statute.
And the reason GPL is 'slippery' and merits your ire is because the term
actually changes meaning after the fact! You can "use" the software as
an end user, but as soon as you "use" the software as a developer, the
software you create "using" it. According to the FSF, under one
specific case (using and API that only a GPL library is available for),
this "use" includes the development, not only the production, as
conventional in the software industry. This is also consistent with the
literal idea that it is copying the text, not the rights of authorship,
that is the root of copyright. But that idea is overly literal;
copyright isn't metaphysics, its book-keeping.
>>It is this definition of 'derivative' which is what you claim to be an
>>extra-legal extension of copyright. This is a conceptual glitch, I know
>>realize. I was committing it myself, for quite a while, until very
>>recently. It is the assumption that the term 'derivative' in the
>>license is necessarily identical to the term 'derivative' within the
>>statute of copyright. This could well be a mistake, though.
>
>You are near the heart of the matter here. I think the GPL uses
>the term "based on", and while the GPL says that it is equivalent
>to 'derivative works' as defined in copyright law, it appears to me
>that the usage appears to include derivative works and compilations
>with some exceptions.
This would be true if they actually made a claim against all programs
using an API that *any* GPL library supports. This is not the case, and
that is the difference between the shift in meaning you noticed being
acceptable or unacceptable, I think.
>The problem is really that the works we
>are discussing are not derivative works according to copyright law,
>and if they are compilations, copyright holders can only restrict the
>distribution of their portions of a compilation.
I disagree; I would say they are derivative works according to copyright
law, but are not seen to be currently because of the myth about "APIs".
A library author cannot deny any other author the right to build on his
platform; that much is clear from the video game cartridge cases. But
this does not prevent an author from being free to enter into whatever
agreement he wants with anyone he desires. You don't have to accept the
GPL. You can write a program based on a unique library that is GPL, and
distribute your code as something other than GPL, and you can take the
matter to court. But there is no reason to do that unless you have a
commercial interest.
The FSF seems to be 'playing dirty', because the only people who can get
"tricked" by this slippery license. Perhaps the GPL is nothing but a
dirty trick. But the only people who can get tricked are the ones who
want to build commercial software, the proprietary closed source kind
that can be easily profiteered on, or the open source kind that can be
sold the same way. Les claims this inhibits some software from being
written, and tries to concentrate on that, despite the obvious quagmire
of the position. GPL fans are happy with what is being written GPL, and
are quite happy when it is written fresh rather than becoming GPL
through infection. Who needs old software?
>>The GPL is a private contract. Although it conforms to copyright law in
>>being a license agreement for copyright material, it is NOT copyright
>>law itself. It is a private contract. So your observation that the
>
>And how is the contract formed? You seem to agree that you have not
>become obligated to the contract simply by reading the source code. I
>don't see how there can be any sign of agreement or obligation until
>you either attempt to do something which law prohibits and the license
>allows, or until you manifest your assent and acceptance to the
>agreement in some other fashion.
Again, I would heartily encourage you to take the matter up with the
court; I don't believe in such implied contracts either. Still, nobody
has ever been commercially ensnared in the GPL in this matter, and the
same can't be said of proprietary software.
>Creating and distributing a derivative work as defined in copyright law
>certainly does the trick, as would calling up RMS and telling him you
>agree to his terms. But if neither of those things are done, how
>does the license become binding? There isn't even the highly
>questionable shrinkwrap to discuss here. Consideration is even
>more problematic.
That's a very good point. I will think about it. It seems the same as
shrinkwrap licensing to me. But then again, I don't believe in
shrinkwrap licensing. On the gripping hand, I don't believe in software
licensing. Software is more science than art; we should call the people
who do it best "smartest", not "richest".
>IMO it's as if I wrote out an IOU with your name on it and then tried
>to collect. I wouldn't expect it to work.
If you could come up with an example that didn't involve money at all, I
might understand your point.
>Similarly, the FSF can
>print up all the contracts they want, but somehow they need to bind
>parties to them before those parties need to care about the contents
>of the contract.
The difference comes down to whether you claim to have an IOU, or
whether you try to collect. They claim to have an IOU for $0. You seem
to be claiming they can't collect it.
All they have collected on so far, analytically, is a lesson in the
difference between a library and an API, which was already clear. Your
claim that they have overstepped the bounds of reason that using an API
is evidence of infringement is appropriate, but the position is not
incoherent to everyone, and is far less grievance that any and every
end-user license agreement on proprietary software.
But the metaphorical effect of this supposedly counter-productive (re:
Les's negative software development) announcement by the FSF is
tremendous. It is the different between allowing GNU software to become
the basis of a commercial software base, and maintaining it as separate.
Now, no person who has anything but a monetary motive would bother to
use APIs that only GNU software supported, and distribute the software.
There are those that might be ignorant, but I don't see the FSF pressing
any criminal prosecutions. ALL of their actions have so far been
entirely rhetorical, in fact.
Perhaps they're just bluffing. You'll have to call their bet to see
their hand, is all. Underhanded? Call it pragmatic; they don't want
GNU software to become the basis of a commercial software base, since
the whole point of GNU software is to avoid a commercial software base,
or provide a real alternative to whatever commercial software bases out
there.
So nobody but Les cares, and in the end it's sour grapes because he
wanted to use an API but didn't have the time to build a library. The
cosmic unfairness of it is substantial, I'm sure. The pragmatic results
aren't negative, however, unless you count the affront to his dignity.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:06 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:46:13
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Because he had to wait for you or I to make the point so he could
>> "borrow" it.
>>
>> He knows nothing.....
>
>Actually others made the point... he eventually came up with an answer, but
>why did it take him so long? He's baiting, that's why. He's trolling.
Pete, you are the one that admitted that you were only pretending that
you didn't know that DirectX sucks, or why. So how am *I* the one who's
trolling, saying "DirectX sucks", and then not proceeding into an
argument about Windows and monopoly crapware, on
*comp.os.linux.advocacy*. Perhaps you've been camped out here too long,
pretending to be playing a devil's advocate, to forget that you are the
one who is trolling.
The discussion was quite interesting, and made the point far more
convincingly than I possibly could have done, had I responded to your
trolling; is this not so?
If you want the true, honest, correct answer to why it took me "so
long", it was because it was a learning exercise. For you. I hope you
didn't miss it entirely, and can benefit from it, if only in retrospect.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:08 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 23:50:17 -0400;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>>>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> JS PL wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > "Judge Jackson's ruling will divert innovative companies from creating
>>>> > better products. Worse, it will send the message to innovators around
>>>the
>>>> > world that in America we punish success. It is this ruling, not
>>>Microsoft,
>>>> > that is damaging to consumers, as it would deny consumers new
>products,
>>>> > better accessibility and lower prices. I'm confident the appeals court
>>>will
>>>> > reject Judge Jackson's notion that any one man can foresee how this
>>>world of
>>>> > possibility should unfold."
>>>> > US Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX)
>>>>
>>>> micro$oft has NEVER competed fairly. They are a success only becasue of
>>>> unfair, anti-competitve and predatory actions. Hopefully the Appeals
>>>> Court will see that and send the case to a lower court for tougher
>>>> penalties.
>>>
>>>Yeah - that's going to happen....start holding your breath about that one.
>>
>>There are no 'penalties', Rick; this is a civil trial. There is only a
>>'remedy', as the government(s) (the plaintiffs) have not ask for any
>>punitive damages.
>>
>>But, then, if JS PL is at all correct, and the appeals court "throws
>>out" the case, you can expect the next step (pretending for a moment the
>>Supreme Court will have nothing to say about it) will most probably be a
>>series of criminal trials for Gates and staff. Unfortunately, the
>>'penalties' might not be up to Rick's standards of proper vengeance in
>>that case, either, but *each instance* of anti-competitive action might
>>be fined, and there's always some chance that our boy Bill will spend
>>some time in prison. Minimal security, but no doubt that's all the
>>worse for a megalomaniac, robbing him of his delusions of persecution
>>and martyrdom.
>
>I see that the acid is starting to kick in there Max.
>
>[prison!....come on....you can't be that deluded...]
You're an argument from ignorance away from being a universal fool,
dude. Give it up.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:09 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 19:00:30
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JS PL <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote:
>>
>>[prison!....come on....you can't be that deluded...]
>>
> Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in
> jail.
>
> What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act
> and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives'
> entire fortunes.
Here-here! Amen.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:11 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 23:45:44 -0400;
>
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>>>"The high tech industry, including Microsoft, has been responsible for
>>>almost 40% of our nation's recent economic growth.
>>
>>How's it stand up not including Microsoft, that's what I wanna know.
>
>Millions would be standing around wondering how to get a box full of
>hardware to do something. tee hee...
And then JS PL turns around and claims not to understand the concept of
monopoly. Go figure. He even threw in the "tee hee" to illustrate why
Gates and Balmer should be criminally prosecuted.
Not much of an argument for Sherman Act, let alone RICO, prosecutions,
but nobody ever said it was an easy case. Just that it was legally
valid. The question of whether their actions were unethical is far more
certain, even absolute.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:13 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 07:36:46 -0400;
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>> >Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>> >>"The high tech industry, including Microsoft, has been responsible for
>> >>almost 40% of our nation's recent economic growth.
>> >
>> >How's it stand up not including Microsoft, that's what I wanna know.
>>
>> Millions would be standing around wondering how to get a box full of
>> hardware to do something. tee hee...
>
>Tee Hee? Are you a six year old girl?
They've been desperately trying to find a way to annoy me with giggles
and grins and 'tee hee' and all sorts of juvenile stuff. Anything but a
cogent argument. That they don't have.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:15 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 15:48:03
[...]
>Well even us old farts distinguished between ISR's and subroutines. But
>yes we used API's long before they were called API's.
This is the clue, see. "They", whatever they might be, started being
called "APIs", *instead of routines or interrupts or simply function
calls*, though all three existed <whether distinctly or not> before
APIs. API is a term that was coined to denote a particular interface,
not a particular kind of interface: the interface between an
"application program" and a *platform*, i.e. Windows. Later, by
definition, the term was applied to all descriptions of a particular set
of libraries' function calls. But the defining feature that makes POSIX
and WIN32 interface specifications "APIs", and the list of interrupts
that DOS 'handled' not, is simply the primitive form. Ayende said this
made it a 'primitive API', but really it just makes DOS a primitive
platform; one that didn't *have* "an API".
Either way, its just semantics; what makes a use of the term API correct
is whether it is accurate, consistent, and practical in the context it
is used, not what it "means" in any metaphysical sense. APIs disappear
under scrutiny just like any interface does. An interface isn't a
"thing" by itself; it's only the connection between two other things.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:17 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>DOS was a (very primitive) OS. And the *only* way to get access to
>>>its services was by way of those INT21h routines.
>>
>> Thus the point; this was not commonly done, since DOS didn't really HAVE
>> any services to speak of, at least not ones that weren't already
>> available directly from the BIOS. I'll go along with "BIS", BIOS
>> Instruction Set, but calling it an API is definitely a revision of
>> history.
>
>You clearly know nothing at all about this subject.
Believe it or not, I honestly wish people would stop saying that.
>Nearly none of the DOS calls were available also from the BIOS.
No, many of the DOS calls were alternate forms of BIOS calls, from what
I've been told.
>The BIOS has no facilities for opening / closing files,
>It can not write to files etc etc. BIOS has no concept of memory blocks.
>BIOS does not know how to exec a program other than bootstrapping the
>machine. BIOS knows nothing at all about directories, as well as networks.
>Only the keyboard input, character output to the screen and printer and a
>little bit dealing with time and date could be done (and then not
>complete) by the BIOS.
>The BIOS knows about hardware and how to access it, INT21h uses the BIOS
>to do exactly that. So DOS has very little hardware dependencies build in.
No shit. Yet DOS applications are so entirely hardware dependent that
they don't even need DOS as more than a bootloader.
>Max, you may be good as a word twister.
>As a programmer you are a complete loss.
>So please just stop making a fool of yourself.
It's my dime. State your case and shut your trap, I like to say.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
