Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] 3. FSF's ownership of parts of the kernel means FSF is one of the copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel. You apparently don't know what the copyright in a collective work is and most likely you were mislead by something said by Moglen (and/or RMS and/or GPL) just like his other mobs. Copyright in a collective work is separate from copyrights in its constituent parts because were it not, it would turn collective works into derivative works which are different beasts under copyright law notwithstanding misstated definition of derivative work in the GPL. BTW, if you have problems with statements made by Eben Moglen, you might be better off clarifying things with him direct rather than on this list. My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or other disciplinary action) is going to reach the critical mass pretty soon. So he might want to slowdown a bit. regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,: My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or other disciplinary action) is going to reach the critical mass pretty soon. So he might want to slowdown a bit. Hmm.. another SCO in the making. -- Mahesh T. Pai Man's most judicious trait, is a good sense of what not to believe. --Euripides -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:10:54AM +0100,: My dossier is rapidly growing. Next time you see Moglen tell him that in the current tempo (driven by the GPLv3) my dossier on his unprofessional conduct (hopefully leading to the disbarment or other disciplinary action) is going to reach the critical mass pretty soon. So he might want to slowdown a bit. Hmm.. another SCO in the making. SCO is a product of FSF. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7801/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer) quote GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt quote I asked Richard to comment on several scenarios involving plug-ins explain whether or not they were in violation of the GPL. So far he as only addressed one and has effectively admitted a hole. This is the one I asked that he's responded to: [A] non-GPL'd plug-in writer writes a plug-in for a non-GPL'd program. Another author writes a GPL'd program making the first author's plug-ins compatible with his program. Are now the plug-in author's plug-ins now retroactively required to be GPL'd? His response: No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program. /quote Judge: Okay, but what if all these works were written to extend a free GPL'd program? Stallman: Oh, all power to them; all these works would, of course, fall under the GPL as derivative works (aka derived works). Judge: Sontag, do you agree with Mr. Stallman? Sontag: Of course! GPL has the same derivative rights concept as UNIX. And those IBM's works were written to extend OUR program and hence, as derivative works, they fall under our licensing restrictions with respect to confidential treatment. I want up to 50$ billion in damages from IBM, your Honor. /quote Now regarding the GPLv3 (draft) and another SCO in the making I'll quote day5done. quote The GPLv3 states: 2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program. The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. Anyone see the words This License explicitly affirms your *unlimited permission* to run the Program? When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are running (executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The linked code is object code that is executed in memory. Moglen states: We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. Since when does unlimited permission mean --is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released.? I thought unlimited permission meant unlimited permission. Hm. Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again... Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat like SCO claiming all your code is mine. Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd? /quote regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. And how does that make it impure GPL? Permission to relicense under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms. Are we talking about what makes sense, or about what Mr Moglen says? I'm talking about lies (in all good faith) http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL. either to a judge in Indiana or to the press. Or maybe both. regards, alexander.
Re: Ironies abound
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain, But the only source we have for that seems to be the article by Knuth that you cite (I have also searched the web without getting anywhere else): Some searching around led to an article The Future of TeX and Metafont, written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/digests/tex-mag/v5.n1. From this article: I have put these systems into the public domain so that people everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish. [...] anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as long as they do not use the names TeX, Metafont, or Computer Modern. [followed by conditions for using the names based on a test suite] We're usually cautious, with good reason, when an author claims to have put something into the public domain, and proceed immediately by giving restrictions on how one can change it. Ordinarily we conclude that the author's declaration must have used a different meaning of public domain that the common one (perhaps gratis). In fact, when Knuth writes in the continuation: | In particular, any person or group who wants to produce a program | superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is allowed to | call a system TeX or Metafont unless that system conforms 100% to my | own programs, as I have specified in the manuals for the trip and | trap tests. it seems that he merely purports to allow any person or group to produce a better program by writing it from scratch; there is no indication in the text that he is authorizing anybody to derive it from his source from TeX. Further searching reveals several sources that indicate the American Mathematical Society obtained a trademark on the name TeX for the purposes of enforcing those conditions. Given the limitations on the scope of such a trademark, I don't believe this can render the program non-free. I agree that trademarks probably cannot by themselves make software non-free, but I'm questioning whether the _copyright_ status of the work is OK. -- Henning Makholm The bread says TOAST. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Later in the file, it is written:
,
| If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
| `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
| for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
| A special test suite called the ``\.{TRIP} test'' is available for
| helping to determine whether a particular implementation deserves to be
| known as `\TeX' [cf.~Stanford Computer Science report CS1027,
| November 1984].
`
But this is right after a paragraph that speaks about the \.{WEB}
description can be extended without changing the core of \TeX82
itself, which appears to allude to distributing patches without
actually modifying tex.web.
http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15knut.pdf where he also
says:
,
| All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain;
| thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm
| retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go
| by this name are are obliged to conform to the standard. If any
| changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are
| not called TeX or METAFONT.9
`
But _methods_ and _ideas_ were never protected by copyright in the
first place.
--
Henning Makholm Wir kommen nun ans Ziel unserer Ausführungen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hrrm. We need a different clause then. No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access to that work. This is too broad. If I have a machine on the internet which is secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine. That's using your authority as the *machine owner*, though. Not your authority as a *copyright holder*. That's precisely the distinction I'm trying to make here, though I clearly haven't succeeded. That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible. I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus on the *legal* issues, since the technology is not different, but the legal basis is. A legitimate privacy control may control access to many things -- but it does *not* exert control over works you have published (since they're, well, *public*.) -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
I wrote: Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a technological measure which effectively controls access to any work. Walter Landry wrote: Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true. Well, no, but I think it is in fact true. It is decided by external factors, such as whether the people implementing the scheme know how to do decent crypto. No; if I wrote this correctly, it is true. According to the legal definitions which I was using, it effectively controls access if it requires the application of information (etc.) with *copyright holder authority* in order to access. This is impossible because there is no mechanistic way to test whether the information is being provided with copyright holder authority or without it. No program can actually require copyright holder authority; it's unimplementable. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just a goddamned piece of paper. -- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection scheme, then, well, it's not effective). If the law is being enforced anyway (which it is, of course), then it's being interpreted to mean something a little different--where effective means something other than what it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while under the influence of the courts' private version of the language. I think that effective does not mean perfect. Having a police force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from perfect. What about a clause which says 'designed to be' rather than 'effective'? Because GnuPG is an effective TPM, but it is designed as a personal privacy program rather than a copyright enforcement program. This sounds like the disclaimers you sometimes see stating that a particular piece of software is not designed for safety critical systems. If it is just a disclaimer, then there is no freeness problem. But then I don't really see the point. If it is meant to prohibit certain types of modifications of the software, then we run squarely into DFSG #3 and/or #6. Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
* Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060119 17:15]: Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the GPL is to always send a second CD with the sources. Now, here's another idea. Suppose that when the user clicks buy they get a message: would you like the sources CD? (extra $2). If they click yes we package it too. If they click no we don't, and never again have to worry about the sources because we did give them a chance. And because the offer was for a CD, it is an equivalent medium. In your non-lawyer opinion, is this an appropriate use of the GPL? I doubt it, as you are selling the CDs and not the service of copying CDs. (Though the latter case most propably only make the situation more complex.). So the is made by offering access to copy does not help as someone pointed out. Without the extra $2 I could imagine something like Your buy includes an extra source CD. If you want to not get it sent, we will recycle the CD by trying to sell it someone else. Do you want us to throw it into the recycle bin on your behalf instead of sending to you?. Though the lawyers and judges would surely find some problem with that, too. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moglen on kernel firmware blobs
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next Moglen: I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden. The blobs--though they are ethically objectionable to the Free Software Foundation, which believes that users ought to know what's running--are different because they are separate works when executed running in separate computers. From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux kernel, they're just data. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen on kernel firmware blobs
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next Moglen: I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden. The blobs--though they are ethically objectionable to the Free Software Foundation, which believes that users ought to know what's running--are different because they are separate works when executed running in separate computers. From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux kernel, they're just data. Exactly what I've always been saying. Call them non-free if you will, but don't get it mixed up with the GPL. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:20:53 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote: Andrew Donnellan wrote: Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that calls POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in contrib. Hmmm. The description certainly didn't give that indication, nor did the fact that povray was only in Suggests. If it has no functionality without povray, I agree that it should be in contrib; if it can be useful without povray, the current situation is fine. I've just did the same checks! And I am as curious as you to find out whether this package should Suggest or Recommend povray... I hope some volunteers to install it and check, so that a serious bug can be filed against kpovmodeler, if necessary... Personally, I lack knowledge about povray and similar 3D renderers: as a consequence I don't feel qualified to determine by myself whether * kpovmodeler works perfectly without povray, * kpovmodeler doesn't work because it needs povray (which is not installed), or * kpovmodeler doesn't seem to work, because I have no clue and don't know how to actually use it...;-) So, in conclusion, any volunteers? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpi44uJnQRzZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moglen on kernel firmware blobs
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:18:06AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next Moglen: I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are apparently not, (proprietary drivers) would be forbidden. The blobs--though they are ethically objectionable to the Free Software Foundation, which believes that users ought to know what's running--are different because they are separate works when executed running in separate computers. From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux kernel, they're just data. Exactly what I've always been saying. Call them non-free if you will, but don't get it mixed up with the GPL. What Moglen says is that the Linux kernel being GPL does not force the blob to be GPL. There still the question of actually having a license to distribute the blobs. If that license is the GPL we are back to square one. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:49:09AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: I think that effective does not mean perfect. Having a police force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from perfect. A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is not imperfect. If I post my root password to this list, it is not an imperfect but still effective security mechanism; it is useless and defeated. (It seems to me that the real goal of this law is so that once a security mechanism is defeated, and is no longer effective, the real security mechanism becomes the law itself: by pretending that the obsolete mechanism is still effective, the deterrent becomes the threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound
Frank Küster wrote: Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and conclusive evidence... Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on SEARCH trademarks, then New User Search (Basic), then search for 73478133 is serial or registration number It says there that it was abandoned, I'm not quite sure what that means. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is not imperfect. If I post my root password to this list, it is not an imperfect but still effective security mechanism; it is useless and defeated. But, as you note below, that's not the case. (It seems to me that the real goal of this law is so that once a security mechanism is defeated, and is no longer effective, the real security mechanism becomes the law itself: by pretending that the obsolete mechanism is still effective, the deterrent becomes the threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.) Precisely. IIRC, effective security mechanism was defined in terms of controlling access in the normal course of operation -- which the copyright holder is going to have a great deal of flexibility to define. If you want to be charitable, you might say that effective here is being used in the sense of effectively, it's a security mechanism. But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being used in a way that requires the mechanism to be robust. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: If you want to be charitable, you might say that effective here is being used in the sense of effectively, it's a security mechanism. But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being used in a way that requires the mechanism to be robust. I thought about effectively, but that just means in reality. If I post my password to the internet, it is no longer, in reality, a security mechanism. In any case, it's not my interpretation, or a rational interpretation, that counts, it's the court's--which was my original point. Evaluations of anti- DRM clauses need to bear in mind the reality of the laws, not just the literal word. Walter says, I think, that merely stating GPG isn't an effective encryption software doesn't make it true. That's so--but if it's not actually the effectiveness of the security mechanism that the law cares about, but something else (such as stated intent), then the apparent simple untruth of the statement may not indicate that it won't be effective (and taken in context of the interpretation of the law, may not be untrue). If the authors of the statement have done some research into this (which I would hope), it might be interesting to hear their rationale in more detail, even if it's we don't know if this will work, we're just throwing darts at the courts (which is fine with me, as long as the clause seems harmless). -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 00:31 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I hope some volunteers to install it and check, so that a serious bug can be filed against kpovmodeler, if necessary... Since I used to play with povray before becoming involved with debian. I've just installed kpovmodeler 3.5.0-3, and played with it a little. * kpovmodeler works perfectly without povray, Without povray, you lose the ability to render your scene in non-wireframe format (also you cannot preview textures). You can compose your scene fine if you don't mind the wireframe display. However, you can export scenes to the plain text povray format, which you could then manually translate to other formats. Also, the .kpm files it saves are gzipped XML that could possibly be converted for use in other ray-tracers if they implement enough features. .kpm files certainly look more useful for transfer to other ray-tracers than .pov, which has some scripting features. kpovmodeler can apparently import .pov files (I didn't test that though). * kpovmodeler doesn't work because it needs povray (which is not installed), or False. * kpovmodeler doesn't seem to work, because I have no clue and don't know how to actually use it...;-) It works fine and seems to implement support for quite a lot of povray's objects/textures/etc. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
I think that KPovModeler was developed with the intention that you have POV-Ray installed. It will work fine without it, but it can only save KPMs and POV files, and at the moment there is no other software that can read it. andrew On 1/21/06, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 00:31 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I hope some volunteers to install it and check, so that a serious bug can be filed against kpovmodeler, if necessary... Since I used to play with povray before becoming involved with debian. I've just installed kpovmodeler 3.5.0-3, and played with it a little. * kpovmodeler works perfectly without povray, Without povray, you lose the ability to render your scene in non-wireframe format (also you cannot preview textures). You can compose your scene fine if you don't mind the wireframe display. However, you can export scenes to the plain text povray format, which you could then manually translate to other formats. Also, the .kpm files it saves are gzipped XML that could possibly be converted for use in other ray-tracers if they implement enough features. .kpm files certainly look more useful for transfer to other ray-tracers than .pov, which has some scripting features. kpovmodeler can apparently import .pov files (I didn't test that though). * kpovmodeler doesn't work because it needs povray (which is not installed), or False. * kpovmodeler doesn't seem to work, because I have no clue and don't know how to actually use it...;-) It works fine and seems to implement support for quite a lot of povray's objects/textures/etc. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD0crJ5Sc9mGvjxCMRAnIpAJ9e7IsFPVlljyOp5Nt8qvmH6xQrcwCgzawC xo7+d7Lue8bRezAagKlv7FY= =QQFc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Ironies abound
On 1/21/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster wrote: Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and conclusive evidence... Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on SEARCH trademarks, then New User Search (Basic), then search for 73478133 is serial or registration number It says there that it was abandoned, I'm not quite sure what that means. Unenforced? andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
