Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public policy as well as by statutory and case law. They'll have a fun time a) proving that statement b) telling the court what other permission short of the alleged license they have for copying and distribution. That's pretty much the usual clueless first response. Exactly. Which is why it is hailed by our usual clueless first responders. Now we'll just have to wait for the huzzahs when both parties file for dismissal in the course of which the sources are made available under the GPL (never mind how illegal, unconscionable and whatever else that would be). Or until the court actually issues a ruling, and we'll get the usual hissy fits here about drunken judges and claims that they are in conflict with the Superior Court or whatever other histrionics we are used to seeing from our resident cranks. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine if they coincide with any natural cycles? -- I'll burn my books. -- Christopher Marlowe ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public policy as well as by statutory and case law. They'll have a fun time a) proving that statement b) telling the court what other permission short of the alleged license they have for copying and distribution. a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a). b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. Unlike many GNUtians, the court won't pretend that neither doctrine exists. That's pretty much the usual clueless first response. Mindless denial is always a GNUtians first response. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine if they coincide with any natural cycles? Actually, there are certain natural cycles of moaning and grunting that GNUtians express when RJack/Terekhov erupt in them. Bend over Chris and feel the joy. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. I also like FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (MATERIAL BREACH) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred because any and all obligations Defendant may have had under the alleged license agreement at issue in this case were excused by the material breaches of the agreement by Plaintiffs. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (LACK AND/OR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred because Defendants performance of any obligations with respect to the alleged license at issue in this action have been excused by lack and/or material failure of consideration on the part of Plaintiffs with respect to that license. Oh poor SFLC... regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits. So, hopefully, we'll really see. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffsâ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. Asking us to heed it is a contract claim, not copyright infringement claim you silly. By filing copyright infringement claim the licensor materially breaches his obligation/consideration (i.e. obligation not to sue for infringment) in a license agreement. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (MATERIAL BREACH) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred because any and all obligations Defendant may have had under the alleged license agreement at issue in this case were excused by the material breaches of the agreement by Plaintiffs. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (LACK AND/OR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred because Defendants performance of any obligations with respect to the alleged license at issue in this action have been excused by lack and/or material failure of consideration on the part of Plaintiffs with respect to that license. Oh poor SFLC... regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits. You won't see that this time either. If we make it through an actual court ruling, the outcome will be either that there was copying without permission (which is a ruling on the merits of copyright), or that the defendants would do better to come into compliance with any purported license they claim to have been given, GPL or not. Or a defendant can show that he is not in fact distributing the software. So, hopefully, we'll really see. The topic will be copyright. The GPL is what helps the defendants out of the court, not what brings them into it. So it is not likely there will be much to see. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. Asking us to heed it is a contract claim, not copyright infringement claim you silly. By filing copyright infringement claim the licensor materially breaches his obligation/consideration (i.e. obligation not to sue for infringment) in a license agreement. A licensor has an obligation not to sue for infringement when the license terms are breached? Breached? BREACHED? As in breach of contract as contrasted with copyright infringement? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You should keep away from the keyboard during your wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. You should keep away from the keyboard during your wet dreams. Never happen. Your pear shaped, delectable butt is always on one's mind. Arrrgh... Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote: a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a). Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is a case of normal copyright infringement brought under the federal copyright law. b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. They may tell the court anything they like, but promissory estoppel does not apply to GPL-covered code since the license clearly spells out the conditions under which the code may be copied and distributed. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote: a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a). Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is a case of normal copyright infringement brought under the federal copyright law. Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement? b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. They may tell the court anything they like, but promissory estoppel does not apply to GPL-covered code since the license clearly spells out the conditions under which the code may be copied and distributed. Uhhh. Do you mean the preempted covenants that you incorrectly refer to as conditons? Preempted is preempted. What do conditions have to do with anything? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 7:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Oh poor SFLC... You appear to have very strange beliefs about the legal system. Aside from your general misunderstanding of copyright law, you seem to believe that answers and counterclaims have some magical power merely by being stated. Proper lawyering always involves throwing up every possible defense to a suit, plausible or not. If nothing else, it makes extra work for the other side, plus any claim not asserted can't be raised later, so it's important to get everything out immediately. To an anti-GPL crank, the sun rising in the East is proof of the failure of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. You've already lost. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote: Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement? When there are other defenses possible under federal law, such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering. Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized copying and distribution with nothing else involved. Uhhh. Do you mean the preempted covenants that you incorrectly refer to as conditons? Preempted is preempted. What do conditions have to do with anything? GPL cases involve simple copyright infringement caused by copying and distributing without adhering to the conditions of the license. There is no preemption involved, because preemption merely states that all copyright comes from federal law, and it is federal law which disallows copying and distribution without permission. The conditions of the GPL are conditions, just as the conditions of the Artistic License are conditions: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied. (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted provided that the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote: Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement? When there are other defenses possible under federal law, such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering. Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized copying and distribution with nothing else involved. Uhhh. Do you mean the preempted covenants that you incorrectly refer to as conditons? Preempted is preempted. What do conditions have to do with anything? GPL cases involve simple copyright infringement caused by copying and distributing without adhering to the conditions of the license. There is no preemption involved, because preemption merely states that all copyright comes from federal law, and it is federal law which disallows copying and distribution without permission. The conditions of the GPL are conditions, just as the conditions of the Artistic License are conditions: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied. (Emphasis added.) The Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five. Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg! regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 9:40 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? When a court does the calling, yes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright. Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar- denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. You've already lost. You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the floor laughing before dismissing the case. In a recent case in the Southern District of New York, Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda, 07 Civ. 1241 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y. November 19, 2008), District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin reminds us of the well settled principle that At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered' [citing RSO Records v. Peri, 596 F.Supp. 849,862 (SDNY 1984); New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie Co., 161 F.Supp.2d 293,303 (SDNY 2001); 4 Nimmer Sec. 14.04[E][1] at 14-90(2005)] and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality' http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html#1456008093780326775 Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 10:00 AM, RJack wrote: The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. The reasoning will apply universally, since it is correct. At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered' But infringing defendants will be enjoined from continuing to infringe regardless of the monetary value of damage suffered by the plaintiffs. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf You've already lost. You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the floor laughing before dismissing the case. Tsktsktsk. Remember: stay off the keyboard when having wet dreams. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote: Once the GPL is invalidated http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf You've already lost. You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed in the Second Circuit. The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the federal system. I hope and pray that the SFLC cites to the CAFC. It will be a real treat to see a federal district court judge rolling on the floor laughing before dismissing the case. Tsktsktsk. Remember: stay off the keyboard when having wet dreams. YOU just keep your pants pulled up. Sweetie. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote: Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit precedental law there will be no damages at all. The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing copyrighted computer programs without permission. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies. That's Versa's tenth defense. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it. We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court. Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it suppressed new competition. Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote: Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit precedental law there will be no damages at all. The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing copyrighted computer programs without permission. Dream on silly boy. Trix are for kids. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
