Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[GOTO Masanori]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,
Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
> > may have been different.
> > 
> > What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
> > reason to remove package.  
> > 
> > How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
> > different issue.
> 
> I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
> important.
> 
> This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
> Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
> 
> Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
> from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
> Woody uses Watanabe.
> There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
> dirty source ourself.

Exactly.

As far as I saw the recognition in Japanese free software community is
"don't use this dirty gray font considered with various law and
issue".  AFAIK, almost all Japanese distributers (RedHat, Vine,
Turbolinux, ...) removed these problematic fonts from their current
image.  We sometimes discussed other distro developers with this
issue, and our general concensus is: just replace with the alternative
new kochi font family.

Even I heard from some users that they would like to use free fonts in
pease.  I considered all these situation, and decided to replace kochi
for stable.

Regards,
-- gotom

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[GOTO Masanori]

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> > > kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> > > font rather than Watanabe font.
> > 
> > If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
> > that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.
> 
> Exactly.  We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
> reason to do so.  HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim.  Is it good attitude?

Regards,
-- gotom

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Kenshi Muto]

Thanks Osamu for clearing the issue,

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:12:12 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
> "right", it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated.  I think
> Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands IP in
> legal sense.  But I think discussion went off course because we focused
> on HITACHI issue too much.

I agree.

> > One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> > kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> > font rather than Watanabe font.
> > Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
> > As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
> > wait to install by ftp maintainers.
> 
> Are they clearly nicer looking fonts or just an alternative?

I think Kochi is nicer looking than Watanabe.
I don't know users who use Watanabe for default screen font since Woody.

Of course, from the view of "just an alternative", Kochi and Watanabe
is different looks. That's all.

> Then you should argue that font with cleaner history makes Debian looks
> good by socially responsible without damaging its functionality.
> 
> Please avoid using words such as "Debian must ...".  There is no
> imperative here.  Just a house keeping to clean stinky socks to the
> dump.  Tell us you are removing ugly fonts with not-so-nice history
> behind, people may consider removing from next release.

> > I tell history again (see
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html):
> ...
> 
> This is not published by HITACHI.  That is the problem.

Yes.

> > Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
> > Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
> > Hitachi a little:
> > - Stealing of font goes negative prescription
> ??? I do not understand.

Sorry, I don't familiar with law word.
In the other words, steal from Hitachi/Typebank original font occured
very long time ago. There was no law protection (only license
agreement?) in that time. If Hitachi/Typebank want to sue thief guy,
this act is expired by criminal law/civil law, I think.

> > - Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
> >   need to answer something
> 
> You mean me.  It is their obligation if they want to claim their right.

> > - Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank
> 
> If it is not protected by law, they do not have right.

I think so.
But Japanese court sometime make strange decision :-)

> > Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.
> 
> I do not understand this.  If they forget, just shut up or give away any
> rights if it existed.  Problem is the other way.

Well, this may be difficult for Hitachi/Typebank.
They seem haven't make consensus opinion (especially Hitachi is big company).
Of course they don't tell us "please remind me such a problem"
officialy. Hitachi announced a ambiguous statement relucantly.

> I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
> may have been different.
> 
> What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
> reason to remove package.  
> 
> How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
> different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.

This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)

Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

Thanks,
-- 
Kenshi Muto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Osamu Aoki]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:56:47PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Kenshi Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >> If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
> >> provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
> >> removal would entail actual hardship for
> 
> > "same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
> > original author's permission.
> 
> Huh? Does that means that Hitachi asserts a copyright on the very
> words "their" font is used to write down, or what?

HITACHI font is bitmap fonts.  Since it is 32 dots fonts which can hold
some aestetic feature of characters, it has uniq shape as a set of
characters.  

Some WATANABE fonts (vector) used HITACHI font derivative as its base.
(Someone copied font file used by HITACHI wordprocessor and distributed
without HITACHI's permission)

Can font data set can be protected is one question but that right
extends to vectorization is another big question.  As I see, HITACHI
sees that way.  I disagree here.  I do not know they had shrinkwrap
contract for old wordprocessor either.

> > One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> > kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> > font rather than Watanabe font.
> 
> If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
> that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly.  We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so.  HITACHI is just a noise.

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:47:14PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Kenshi Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?
> > 
> > What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.
> 
> I see.

Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
"right", it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated.  I think
Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands IP in
legal sense.  But I think discussion went off course because we focused
on HITACHI issue too much.
 
> > > I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.
> > 
> > It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
> > Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
> > alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
> > oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for
> 
> "same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
> original author's permission.

That is called "threaft", if "glyph" is something which has exclusive
ownership permitted by the law after they put it to use for their
WORD-PROCESSOR.  Also HITACHI was not actively keeping this kind thing to
happen.  It has been long since then.  In the sense HITACHI also
committed lack of active enforcement.

Also Debian got this as sort of innocent third party who has no binding
term signed with HITACHI. 

> It is too heavy work (and I think it may be nonsense) to make Japanese
> font without any original font since Japanese font needs massive
> glyphs.

This misses important point.   The amount of workload does not create IP
right automatically.  HITACHI must have legally protected their right in
some way, they can not extend the fact of creation to the exclusive
right.

This may not fit your common Japanese sense, but that is the law
anywhere including Japan, as I see it.

In some cases, copyright protect them.  In other, design patent (this is
US thing.) protect them.  Japanese registered "Ishoo" seems like kind of
design patent but I am not a lawyer. In other case, binding contract
protect them.  If it is copyright, right is automatically assigned.
Some other means requires special protocol to ensure their right.  If
HITACHI did not do this and if they are suddenly claiming their right, I
say "tough luck".

HITACHI was very unclear on this RIGHT issue.  I made a conscious letter
to address this point after reading their web site.

Important thing is if HITACHI wish to claim their right, they have to
make convincing argument to us.  It is not us to guess where their right
comes from.  The burden of proof for their right is on the HITACHI side.

I have no problem removing them if proper procedure are followed.  But
using very loose claim by HITACHI as its reason is bad precedents.

> One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> font rather than Watanabe font.
> Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
> As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
> wait to install by ftp maintainers.

Are they clearly nicer looking fonts or just an alternative?

Then you should argue that font with cleaner history makes Debian looks
good by socially responsible without damaging its functionality.

Please avoid using words such as "Debian must ...".  There is no
imperative here.  Just a house keeping to clean stinky socks to the
dump.  Tell us you are removing ugly fonts with not-so-nice history
behind, people may consider removing from next release.

> > our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
> > infringement to present a more coherent case first.
> 
> I tell history again (see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html):
...

This is not published by HITACHI.  That is the problem.

> Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
> Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
> Hitachi a little:
> - Stealing of font goes negative prescription
??? I do not understand.

> - Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
>   need to answer something

You mean me.  It is their obligation if they want to claim their right.

> - Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank

If it is not protected by law, they do not have right.

>   want to allow to copy/redistribution freely, other font vendors
>   don't permit. Creating Japanese font is not so cheap work. It
>   creates a market.

You mean there is financial value.  So does any piece of software.

> Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.

I do not understand this.  If they forget, just shut up or give away any
rights if it existed.  Problem is the other way.

> But we, Debian Project, need to say our official sta

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Joachim Breitner

> You are talking about the usual case where the copyright owner
> releases a work under the GPL but still has all rights to do with it
> what it wants, like selling the binarys.

Yes. That is what happens here.

> But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this is for
> you, and your rights are according to this text (the GPL), then they
> bound themselves to the conditions they proposed (the GPL). And the
> GPL grants me the right to get the source code.

No it doesn't. The only rights the GPL gives you are the rights to
modify and/or distribute if you always distribute source code along
with binaries you distribute. It does not give you any right to make
anyone give you the source code.

If I give you a Linux kernel image but do not give you the source, you
*cannot* sue me to get the source; I never promised you anything and
you have no contract with me. However, in doing the copying, I
promised Linus that I would give you the source; as recipient of this
promise *he* can sue me for copying without jumping through the hoops
he has specified. He can, however, also retroactively decide that in
this particular case he doesn't care to sue me.

("Cannot sue", of course, means "cannot sue and have any chance of
winning").

> Atmel agreed to the condition of the GPL when they distributed it,
> and I agreed on them when I downloaded it. A contract. That grants
> me the right to get the source code.

You're seriously confused. Atmel does *not* need to accept the
liabilities that the GPL places on "you". They already have the
permission to distribute, with or without source as they please.

> > Won't work. In most jurisdictions, the only one who can file suits
> > alleging non-compliance with copyright licenses is the copyright
> > holder himself, or his legal delegate.

> Well, I would sue them for breaking our "contract".

No, because they aren't. Their obligations as a GPL licensor include
nothing more than suffering your copying, modification, distribution
as long as you fulfill the terms set forth in the GPL. The only way
they could conceivably "break" those obligations is if they sue *you*
for copyright violation even if you *have* followed the terms of the
GPL (which you cannot do as long as you are not in possession of the
source).

-- 
Henning Makholm "... and that Greek, Thucydides"

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 01:50:
> Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
> > to either "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> > source code" or "Accompany it with a written offer,
> No. They are the copyright holder, so they can always do whatever they
> want. Slapping GPL on a work is a grant *from* the copyright holder
> *to* everyone else which allows everyone else to distribute and modify
> under certain conditions. Everyone else needs to follow those
> conditions, because otherwise we won't have any permission to
> distribute. But the copyright holder has permission to distribute *by
> default* and does not need a license from himself to do so to do so.

True, but this time it is the otherway around. You are talking about the
usual case where the copyright owner releases a work under the GPL but
still has all rights to do with it what it wants, like selling the
binarys. But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this is
for you, and your rights are according to this text (the GPL), then they
bound themselves to the conditions they proposed (the GPL). And the GPL
grants me the right to get the source code.

Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this "licence": 
 * you may read it
 * you may print it
Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both
accepted these conditions. Atmel agreed to the condition of the GPL when
they distributed it, and I agreed on them when I downloaded it. A
contract. That grants me the right to get the source code.

Again, this is meant hypothetical, but I think this is an interesting
case.

> > So I guess we should just get a lawyer to make Atmel hand out the
> > source code :-)
> Won't work. In most jurisdictions, the only one who can file suits
> alleging non-compliance with copyright licenses is the copyright
> holder himself, or his legal delegate.
Well, I would sue them for breaking our "contract".

nomeata
-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
  e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
  JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
  Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z?
Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge.
Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:41:13PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:

> > > Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
> > > in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
> > > not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
> > > legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
> > > there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
> > > the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
> > > parties' pockets.

> > If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
> > likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
> > includes no actual financial impact.  It does not even say how much they
> > gained.   

> > I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.

> The phase of whether legal or illegal was really old issue.

> LABO-123 32dot was fully-copied without license agreement from Hitachi.
> Watanabe font/xfonts-intl-japanese-big(<1.2.1) is copied from LABO-123
> as is.
> Kochi font was copied some part from Watanabe.

> IMHO Japanese font stands very weak about legal basis, but LABO-123
> creates by license violation.

What license does it violate?

> Dead-copy should be removed also. Hitachi/Typebank continue to sell
> original font.

And they are welcome to continue selling the font to anyone who is
willing to pay for it.

However, I am always opposed to retroactively granting of intellectual
property rights that did not exist at the time of a work's creation.  If
Hitachi had a reasonable belief based in existing Japanese case law that
copyright protection would apply to the font, I'm at least inclined to
be sympathetic to their plight; but I don't think this makes it an issue
that needs to be corrected in a stable release.

> And kochi font upstream author recommends to use new font strongly.
> Do we ignore his intent also?
> Goto-san has already uploaded newer packages to woody, but Martin's
> list don't include them. But xfonts-intl-japanese-big is included.

A package's maintainer is always free to request removal of their
package from unstable, if they feel that Debian should no longer
distribute it (for any reason).  But for a stable release, even a change
in the available font list could be a regression.  We should have solid
reasons for wanting such a removal.

> > > I don't believe that Debian should ingratiate itself to corporations who
> > > throw their weight around to carve out intellectual property without the
> > > sanction of the courts.  Unless and until Hitachi is taking legal action
> > > against our distributors or users in Japan, I think Debian ought to
> > > ignore these apparently baseless claims.

> Steve, do you want to make distributors/users in Japan to teststone?
> I don't agree this idea.
> Debian Project has the responsibility about distribution.

Do you believe that our distributors and users in Japan are truly in any
danger from Hitachi over this issue?

We distribute software that infringes potentially thousands of software
patents, and apply the same policy:  if there is no reason to believe
the patent will be enforced in court, the patent should be treated as if
it did not exist.  And patents pose more of a danger to our users than
this purported "font right" does, because it's use of patented ideas
that infringes a patent holder's rights; I'm not sure what behaviors
would be seen to infringe this hypothetical "font right".

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpUcE8AR7LnF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Nov 18, 2003, at 14:07, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:

;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to 
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that 
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to 
inform

;;;the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.


This clause is moot, because "The T Project at Yale" has not existed
for the last fifteen years.  So a best effort would be a seance at
which a psychic medium channels the spirit of a project past.


Then said improvements would, I think, be returned to Yale University 
or to the T projects successor (if any), or to the copyright holders or 
former members of the project.


It'd probably take some lawyer work to determine the appropriate party 
to deliver them to.

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Nov 18, 2003, at 05:55, Andrew Suffield wrote:

;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to 
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that 
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to 
inform

;;;the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.


Harmless. My best effort consists of waving a gerbil at my workstation
and hoping something along those lines happens.


That's hardly "best efforts"! It's not even "reasonable effort" or 
even, I'd say, and effort.



 (If this were an
actual requirement, rather than a vague request, it would be a
problem.


"agree to make" sounds quite like a requirement to me.

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Nov 20, 2003, at 12:17, Ken Arromdee wrote:

Or to put it another way, is "free software license with redefined 
terms"

necessarily a free software license?


No. DFSG 2 says _very_ clearly that we require source code.

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Nov 19, 2003, at 16:58, Joachim Breitner wrote:


Ok, I guess people that are more into law will tell me that this does
not really work,


Copyright law gives rights to the copyright holder(s), their assignees, 
etc., not the general public.


The only person who can sue for copyright violation is the copyright 
holder. Obviously, it'd be extremely stupid (and likely to get them and 
their lawyers reprimanded/fined/disbarred/etc) if Atmel sued Atmel for 
copyright infringement.

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
> === /usr/share/doc/dvb-utils/copyright ===
> NOTE about the included firmware dump:
> 
> The files Root and Dpram are distributed with the source package. Even if
> they contain binary code, it cannot be executed as part of any other software
> under GPL because of its technical nature. GPL covers these files as prepared
> data accompanying the GPL program.  Their content is to be treated as source
> code.  You may use and distribute it UNDER THE TERMS OF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
> LICENSE. Contact 'convergence integrated media GmbH'
>  for any further questions about the creation of
> the firmware files.

Is this really free?

By this reasoning, I could write any program, compile it, distribute only the
binary, attach a notice saying "This is GPL.  The binary is to be treated as
source code" and it it would be eligible for Debian main.

Or to put it another way, is "free software license with redefined terms"
necessarily a free software license?

(OT) Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Ken Arromdee said on Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:20:27PM -0800,:

 > > > > by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
 > > > > lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)

(snip) 
 
 > But that's not cheap.  Going to law school costs a lot of money.  Becoming a
 > software developer only requires buying a computer, which costs a lot less.

There is at least one case of somebody from IBM going on to be a
patent attorney. See:-
 
http://www.fenwick.com/attorneys/4.2.2.asp?aid=435

Googling consequent  to the discovery  that the link mentioned  in the
Halloween IX  docs on SCO revealed  the above link.  (see the comments
about para  111, the part about  IBM not releasing code  without an IP
audit.)

-- 
+~+
  
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,   
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,   
  Kerala, India.  
  
  http://in.geocities.com/paivakil 
  
+~+

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Kenshi Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
>> provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
>> removal would entail actual hardship for

> "same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
> original author's permission.

Huh? Does that means that Hitachi asserts a copyright on the very
words "their" font is used to write down, or what?

> One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

-- 
Henning Makholm "Slip den panserraket og læg
  dig på jorden med ansigtet nedad!"

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
>> > release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
>> > bitten by this before.  So why not move everything to non-free which
>> > is not under a "GPL, version 2 only" license?
>
>> That the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free tells us nothing about the
>> DFSG-freeness of *any* other license.
>
> Um, the GFDL was not a part of that debate at all. Brian was
> responding to some opinions I had about Apache's apparent intent to
> knowingly include patent-encumbered algorithms in their product.  He
> was saying, by a fairly usual reductio-ad-absurdum argument, that he
> did not find my reasoning convincing. Even though I still think my
> point was valind, I don't find his counterargument "hysterically
> absurd".

I try to be only hysterical *or* absurd, and never both at once.

Fire hose.

My original intent was to express this opinion: that software should
not be put into main or non-free based on its potential future
freeness, but on its freeness today.  If that state changes, it can be
moved -- though this is unlikely, since most free licenses cannot
suddenly become non-free licenses (patent grants justify that "most").

Aardvark.

By retaining absurdity, I hope to avoid hysterics.

v.42bis High-Security Streaming Pants.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
>> cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
>> strategy.
>
> *shrug* That's not our problem.
>
> President Bush considers a "missile defense shield" a vitally important
> military defense strategy.  That doesn't mean he's right, or that he
> deserves our support.

There's a difference between lack of support, which I endorse, and
active opposition.  A license which has a cost to anyone holding a
software patent, as the currently proposed Apache license, is
non-free.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

firmware files (Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source)

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 19, Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 >The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
 >But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
 >the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
Make an unofficial package which will contain just the firmware and
distribute it from your web site. This is what I will do for my own
packages.
When sarge+1 will be released with a list of tens of unofficial
repositories for firmwares maybe somebody will realize that some
firmwares will probably never be free software, and restricting their
distribution will not help encouraging developers to write free ones.
Beware: I accept arguments about how using a non-free firmware is
unacceptable only from people who have none in their hardware, and I'm
sure that nobody here qualifies. Saying that some non-free software is
OK because it comes in a EEPROM instead of on a CD is hypocrisy.

In main there are already other free drivers for devices which require a
firmware, so this is not a problem. The policy requires packages in main
to "not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution",
and the driver itself is fully functional even without the firmware.
(The device may be a paperweight, but policy does not cover this.)

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [3172 l'XoRKaZ02QyI]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Kenshi Muto]

At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Kenshi Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?
> 
> What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.

I see.

> > I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.
> 
> It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
> Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
> alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
> oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for

"same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original author's permission. It is too heavy work (and I think it may
be nonsense) to make Japanese font without any original font since
Japanese font needs massive glyphs.

One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.
Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
wait to install by ftp maintainers.

> our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
> infringement to present a more coherent case first.

I tell history again (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html):
-
* background
In June 2003, KANOU Hiroki who is one of the developer of Kochi
font, FREE Japanese font, noticed that a part of characters in the
Kochi font are closely similar to a font that is provided by the font
vendor, TYPEBANK Co., Ltd.

Kochi font is based on so-called "Watanabe font" and is diverting
the part of the font. The same-looked fonts that is found in this
time matches this Watanabe font. Watanabe font was certainly
converted from LABO123 32-dot font which was distributed as Public
Domain Software.

As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
Ltd. and HITACHI Ltd. collectively, and copied without
any authorization. Therefore, LABO123 32-dot font, Watanabe font and
any other derivative fonts violate the license of TYPEBANK and HITACHI.

In 29th September 2003, HITACHI announced...
-

Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
Hitachi a little:
- Stealing of font goes negative prescription
- Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
  need to answer something
- Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank
  want to allow to copy/redistribution freely, other font vendors
  don't permit. Creating Japanese font is not so cheap work. It
  creates a market.
Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.

But we, Debian Project, need to say our official statement if we
continue to distribute.
It's not for Hitachi/Typebank, but for our users and distributors.

Thanks,
-- 
Kenshi Muto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:43:10AM +0100, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:42:25PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
> > but on the device?
> 
> Perhaps taking a look at the copyright of linuxtv-dvb might be inspiring:
> 
> === /usr/share/doc/dvb-utils/copyright ===
> NOTE about the included firmware dump:
> 
> The files Root and Dpram are distributed with the source package. Even if
> they contain binary code, it cannot be executed as part of any other software
> under GPL because of its technical nature. GPL covers these files as prepared
> data accompanying the GPL program.  Their content is to be treated as source
> code.  You may use and distribute it UNDER THE TERMS OF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
> LICENSE. Contact 'convergence integrated media GmbH'
>  for any further questions about the creation of
> the firmware files.

Yeah, that's non-free. No right to modify (this application of the GPL
is a no-op).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.

He submitted comments on behalf of the FSF on November 14. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1127301

Quote: "FSF believes that broad automatic termination provisions like
that contained in the first sentence of section 5 are fraught with
potentially serious unintended consequences, and are not an
appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software
against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation."

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Philipp Matthias Hahn]

Hi Debian-zealots!

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:42:25PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
> but on the device?

Perhaps taking a look at the copyright of linuxtv-dvb might be inspiring:

=== /usr/share/doc/dvb-utils/copyright ===
NOTE about the included firmware dump:

The files Root and Dpram are distributed with the source package. Even if
they contain binary code, it cannot be executed as part of any other software
under GPL because of its technical nature. GPL covers these files as prepared
data accompanying the GPL program.  Their content is to be treated as source
code.  You may use and distribute it UNDER THE TERMS OF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
LICENSE. Contact 'convergence integrated media GmbH'
 for any further questions about the creation of
the firmware files.

BYtE
Philipp
-- 
Philipp Matthias Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 GPG/PGP: 9A540E39 @ keyrings.debian.org

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:

> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
> > release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
> > bitten by this before.  So why not move everything to non-free which
> > is not under a "GPL, version 2 only" license?

> That the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free tells us nothing about the
> DFSG-freeness of *any* other license.

Um, the GFDL was not a part of that debate at all. Brian was
responding to some opinions I had about Apache's apparent intent to
knowingly include patent-encumbered algorithms in their product.  He
was saying, by a fairly usual reductio-ad-absurdum argument, that he
did not find my reasoning convincing. Even though I still think my
point was valind, I don't find his counterargument "hysterically
absurd".

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte.
Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af
  en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger
  forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi."

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Kenshi Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?

What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.

> I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for
our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
infringement to present a more coherent case first.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "We will discuss your youth another time."

[OT] Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:07:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> The maintainer might want to contact the upstream author (Olin
> Shivers) who I suspect would be willing to get the license changed.
> If he gives you any trouble feel free to invoke my name as follows:
> "if these lame clauses aren't removed, Barak Pearlmutter cannot
> guarantee that he will not give your phone number to his ex-wife."
> That should get results.

If we should ever raise a glass together, I think I am interested in
hearing the story behind this.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux   | when I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 12:22:50PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Regarding acknowledgements in papers, yes... one of my major
> professor's works has an acknowledgement to "Dr. Smirnov for
> stimulating critical thought processes" [iirc... don't have it in
> front of me.]

Is that the "Doctor Smirnoff" that comes in a bottle at the local
package store?  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   Extra territorium jus dicenti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   impune non paretur.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:05:57AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
> >> 
> >> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to 
> >> return
> >> ;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they 
> >> make,
> >> ;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
> >> ;;;the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.
[...]
> "Best Effort" is a term with specific legal meanings.  "obligation to
> attempt to meet a goal using every reasonable means available," isn't
> a perfect definition, but it's close.  In particular, it doesn't
> consider the costs or consequences of those actions to you: even
> Chinese dissidents can send e-mail, so they have to do so.
> 
> This is not a Free license.

I concur.

> >> ;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software
> >> ;;;shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual 
> >> standards
> >> ;;;of acknowledging credit in academic research.
[...]
> This is, at worst, reducible to the BSD advertising clause.  It's not
> reducible to a copyright notice in the binary: if I'm giving a talk
> about a program I wrote for a professor, I'm obligated by academic
> honesty to mention inspirations and contributions *in the talk*.
> So I would read this clause as requiring acknowledgement of
> inspiration and origins in advertising material, sales pitches, and
> documentation.

I think it's worse than that.

Anything that is both mandatory *and* hopelessly vague is DFSG-non-free
because we don't have a clue what it means.  And by "clue", I mean
something we're confident we can defend in court.

This clause is obviously mandatory ("All materials...shall"), and IMO
it's hopelessly vague as well ("in accordance with the usual
standards").

I think it is unethical to legally bind people to your own lazy
hand-waving.  ("I have a good idea of what I have in mind here, but I
can't be assed to express it clearly, so I'll just expect you to figure
it out, and take you to court if you guess wrong.")  That's bullshit.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't
Debian GNU/Linux   | do if he doesn't know whether he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed Apache license & patent/reciprocity issues

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:29:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I believe that the needs of the free software community are best met
> by patnet strategies that make it more expensive and difficult to
> enforce patents.

There are avenues of enforcement other than a court of law.  There's
good old-fashioned intimidation.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux   |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:42:31PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> | On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> | > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> | > The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
> | > But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
> | > the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
> | > 
> | > > One wonders why they don't just open up the source to the firmware
> | > > drivers since they aren't planning on making any more updates to it.
> | > 
> | > I am not sure about this. I think this is true only for the devices with
> | > Intersil radio.
> | 
> | Does this company even deserve our support?
> 
> Possibly not, but I think a case could be made that Debian's users do.
> (You know, that other priority, the one that isn't Free Software...)

...the one that is no more important than free software.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:16:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is 
> > > requiring.
> > >  As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
> > > for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use 
> > > Apache.
> > 
> > The only problem I see here is return fire: if I'm holding patents as a
> > defense strategy, I want to be able to use them to return fire if an
> > Apache contributor decides to attack me with his own patents, unrelated
> > to Apache.
> 
> This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
> already.  In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to let
> your own company effectively ignore patents of others.  After all, if the
> lawsuit filed against you has no merit, you don't need a patent portfolio to
> defend against it.
> 
> So, its only real purpose is to let the patent holders thwart the patent
> law.  I don't like that one bit.

Well, I think it's probably intended more as a technique to force the
dispute out of the courts and into settlement.

Maybe that's what you mean.

Given the general impression of the USPTO over the past decade or so, it
may be that a significant number of patents in the U.S. would be
invalidated if they were ever brought to litigation.

In which case, the reciprocity clause actually strengthens the existing
broken patent regime by preventing bullshit software patents[1] from
being litigated at all, rather than promoting the development of a
"pool" of patents available to the Free Software community (or any other
supposedly "benevolent" purpose).

I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.

[1] This phrase may be redundant.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux   | when I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
> cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
> strategy.

*shrug* That's not our problem.

President Bush considers a "missile defense shield" a vitally important
military defense strategy.  That doesn't mean he's right, or that he
deserves our support.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |above, but it is too long to fit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Cameron Patrick]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
| > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
| > The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
| > But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
| > the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
| > 
| > > One wonders why they don't just open up the source to the firmware
| > > drivers since they aren't planning on making any more updates to it.
| > 
| > I am not sure about this. I think this is true only for the devices with
| > Intersil radio.
| 
| Does this company even deserve our support?

Possibly not, but I think a case could be made that Debian's users do.
(You know, that other priority, the one that isn't Free Software...)

Cameron.

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:46:37AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think you must look at the entire picture --- not just the copyright
> one --- to determine if software is free. I don't think its free if the
> copyright holder decides to use patents, instead of copyright, to limit
> your freedoms. In short:
> 
>   * If party A releases software, and in some maner prevents you
> from excercising your DFSG-freedoms, then that software is not
> DFSG-free. It doesn't matter if that manner is copyright,
> patent, or the mafia.
>   * If party A releases software, and allows you all your
> DFSG-freedoms but an unrelated party B does not allow you to
> modify it to, e.g., play DVDs, party A's software is still free.
> 
> To put it yet another way, you can't use patents as an end-run around
> freeness.

I entirely agree.  It's not always easy to perform this sort of
analysis, and we may be tricked from time to time through secret
conspiracies between separate organizations, one of whom holds a
copyright and the other who holds a patent implemented by the
copyrighted code.

It would not have been fair to penalize the authors of the GIMP for the
hostile and malicious actions of Unisys regarding the LZW patent, so we
did not.

The case where the same organization holds a copyright and an applicable
patent is a no-brainer, though.  Both the patent and the copyright
licenses must satisfy the DFSG, and furthermore, any subsequent transfer
of either or both the copyright or patent to other parties must be
closely scrunitized.  As a rule of thumb, I'd say any such transfer
should not be regarded as materially affecting the situation.

A hypothetical:

If Microsoft had a patent (free for use in "web browsers only") on HTTP
and had licensed Internet Explorer under the GNU GPL, IE would have to
go in non-free.  If they then sold their patent to IBM, the situation
would not change unless IBM then went and made the patent license fully
DFSG-free.  After all, we really have no way of knowing whether would
Microsoft offered the HTTP patent to IBM for a steeply discounted price
if IBM would agree to never relax the license terms on the patent.  From
what I recall of the Microsoft federal antitrust suit in the U.S., this
sort of arrangment would be entirely within Microsoft's character.

If a single organization (or multiple organizations when there is reason
to believe collusion has taken place) asserts non-free copyright or
patent licenses applicable to the same work, then the copyrighted
implementation must be regarded as permanently tainted until both the
copyright and patent license are made unambiguously DFSG-free.

Organizations need to pay more than just lip service to freedom for us
to recognize their participation in the Free Software community.
Freedom which you cannot exercise is not freedom at all, and those
responsible for preventing the exercise of freedom must be held to
account.

(Yes, I've been reading Chomsky lately.  Does it show? :) )

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the
Debian GNU/Linux   |best of all possible worlds.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right about that.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
> release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
> bitten by this before.  So why not move everything to non-free which
> is not under a "GPL, version 2 only" license?

Yes, that follows quite clearly.  People don't share your opinion, so
resort to hysterically absurd arguments.

That the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free tells us nothing about the
DFSG-freeness of *any* other license.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus wrote that in a
Debian GNU/Linux   | complicated way only to be able to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
> But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
> the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
> 
> > One wonders why they don't just open up the source to the firmware
> > drivers since they aren't planning on making any more updates to it.
> 
> I am not sure about this. I think this is true only for the devices with
> Intersil radio.

Does this company even deserve our support?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  If you don't think for yourself,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  others will think for you -- to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  their advantage.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Harold Gordon


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature