Re: [ilugd] how Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
Replies in-line > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:27:54 + (UTC) > From: PJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from >trash-bin > To: ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > shirish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> First of all sorry for cross-posting the same query on so many lists. > > So don't do that then. It irritates people and gets you bad karma. > >> I read somewhere couple of days ago that Bill Gates actually got his >> source-code from some trash-bin > > It's distorted in the telling. > >> I don't remember the website [snip excuses] > > I posted about it on this mailing list too a while ago, I think. > > "I'd skip out on athletics and go down to this computer center. We were moving > ahead very rapidly: Basic, FORTRAN, LISP, PDP-10 machine language, digging out > the operating system listings from the trash and studying those." > > - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/06/29/bill_gates_roots/ I posted couple of more links after I got feedback. This was the original post which I had read and then forgotten http://www.dhanapalan.com/blog/2008/06/22/bill-gates-and-the-importance-of-source-code/ and another one which I got from here http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_1.html I thank you for the additional link. > PJ > > > > > > -- > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:16:52 +0530 > From: ? Ashish Shukla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] [OT] Difference between cross-post and multi-post > To: The Linux-Delhi mailing list > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > ,--[ On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:58:31AM +0530, shirish wrote: > | Hi all, > | Another thing I know both the articles are written from usenet > | perspectives. From what little I know usenet are the forefathers of > | modern mailing lists, so the above should apply to mailing lists as > | well I guess. > > Cross-posting and multi-posting make difference in newsgroup posting. I > don't know how they're relevant in terms of mailing list. > > If you post a message to multiple newsgroups, by mentioning multiple > newsgroups > separated by commas, in 'Newsgroups' header, this is cross-posting. > There is a 'Followup-To' header, where you specify, on which newsgroup, > you want follow-ups to the posting. > > If you post a single message to multiple newsgroups, by creating separate > postings, > this is multi-posting. > > In case of cross-posting, only single message is submitted, which will > show up in all posted newsgroups. If you've already read that message in one > newsgroup, it'll be marked as _read_ for you by your NUA (news user agent), > so if you came across that message in other newsgroups also, that message > will already marked as _read_ . > > The cross-posting won't have desired effect (similar to newsgroups) in case of > mailing lists, as these mailing lists operate in a different way from > newsgroups. Although the only benefit with cross-posting in terms of mailing > lists is > that you get messages from different lists with same 'Message-ID' header. It > depends > on your MUA to figure out that whether these messages are cross-postings > or not. > > HTH > - -- > ?-- ?- ?--- ?- ???- ?- ?--?-? --? -- ?- ?? ?-?? ?-?-?- -?-? --- -- > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkhonXwACgkQHy+EEHYuXnTTlACeO1jTxDPB7Y1k/tNREYg5dDD3 > A0QAoKDrcYUcQXGbKHT35TjB/ChmqIlu > =7eDU > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > -- > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:11:17 +0530 > From: Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got >Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Linux-Delhi mailing list > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On 29-Jun-08, at 7:44 AM, Raj Mathur wrote: > >>> and when you finally find a buyer for that bridge across the Yamuna >>> don't forget to add octroi and VAT >> >> If you don't believe me, I'd suggest you get some competent lawyer to >> read the various licences at opensource.org and explain to you how >> none >> of them prevents you from selling the software. > > if you are talking law, you would know that interpretation of > statutes (and licenses, contracts etc) does not depend on the mere > letter of the law. So by just examining the licenses, no lawyer, > competent or not can give an opinion on this. > > there are two types of competent lawyers: > > 1. Those who look at the laws and court rulings and tell you what can > be done within the confines of these laws > > 2. Those who look beyond what is written and work to create/develop > the law on
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 9:46 PM, Jasbir Khehra wrote: > Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On 30-Jun-08, at 6:05 PM, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: > [snip] >> >> software is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be bought or sold. It can >> only be shared. >> > Bought any books lately? yes - bought two, one on blender and one on django. Strangely enough, both books are available on the net for free download. Yet I forked out a total 49 euro for one and 39 usd for the other. The sharer of knowledge is entitled to be compensated for the cost of sharing. Note that if I had downloaded it, he would not have got that compensation. But since I prefer dead tree based material to digital stuff I gladly paid my contribution towards the work he did to document and communicate his knowledge and the money spent to inscribe this on dead trees. I also bought several books of fiction which are another type of thing altogether. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 9:42 PM, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: >> >> software is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be bought or sold. It can >> only be shared. >> > > And you would gladly "share" for a neat sum of money? > > In the Gurukul system, knowledge was gladly shared for next to > nothing. If I have an idli and I give the idli to you, you have an idli and I don't. So you compensate me with something worth an idli. If I have knowledge and I give the knowledge to you, we both have knowledge, so compensation is limited to the effort I spent in giving you the knowledge. This is the best ever definition I have seen of FOSS. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:41:22 +0530 Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 30-Jun-08, at 6:05 PM, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: [snip] > > software is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be bought or sold. It can > only be shared. > Bought any books lately? ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
+++ Kenneth Gonsalves [30/06/08 20:41 +0530]: > >software is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be bought or sold. It can >only be shared. > And you would gladly "share" for a neat sum of money? In the Gurukul system, knowledge was gladly shared for next to nothing. - Sandip -- Sandip Bhattacharya http://blog.sandipb.net ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 6:10 PM, Anand Shankar wrote: > I believe the two are FOSS. And as per the GoI contract document, it > is VAT instead of Service Tax!! If you were to interpret > more closely , it means most Government Departments are > ending up buying FOSS, and that too as a Proprietary Software!!! In > fact, it seems it is easier for the seller to propose them as > Proprietary Software, and buyer to ask the seller saying that it is a > Proprietary Software, to facilitate easy purchase within his > organisation. All for the Government records!!! Moreover I am not sure > how many purchase officers can tell the difference between the two and > how. I have just mailed the people who are charging service tax - interesting to see what their response is. After all if foss is a product that can be bought and sold, why should they charge extra? Interestingly enough, I am unable to find in the lists of FOSS business models any mention of a business model of selling FOSS as a product. But I suppose in view of the results of this debate, this will change. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 6:05 PM, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: >> >> I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS >> is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that >> the courts have to recognise this. >> > > According to all FOSS licences, the software itself need not be > available to be downloadable to public - only to the customer (You > can't restrain your > customers from distributing it though) But the essence being that all > the rights the licences talk about, are that of the paying customer. > > If that is the case, why cannot one sell software with source along > with all the other freedoms given by the licence? What is immoral > about > it? When you are using the term 'immoral', you mean it is the > violation > of certain principles/intent of the licence. What violation do you see > here? software is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be bought or sold. It can only be shared. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > question is: when you 'sell' FOSS do you charge VAT or do you charge > service tax. We recently 'bought' a FOSS package for 3 lakhs. We were > charged service tax to the tune of 36,000. If we had 'bought' a > proprietary package we would have paid sales tax at 4% or 12,000. (at > that time there was no VAT in tamilnadu). > > > -- > regards > > Kenneth Gonsalves DGS&D (Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal, Government of India) has a rate contract for Redhat Enterprise Linux and Suse Enterprise Linux. If the above two are considered FOSS, as per the terms and conditions, the prices mentioned are inclusive of CST / 4% VAT. I believe the two are FOSS. And as per the GoI contract document, it is VAT instead of Service Tax!! If you were to interpret more closely , it means most Government Departments are ending up buying FOSS, and that too as a Proprietary Software!!! In fact, it seems it is easier for the seller to propose them as Proprietary Software, and buyer to ask the seller saying that it is a Proprietary Software, to facilitate easy purchase within his organisation. All for the Government records!!! Moreover I am not sure how many purchase officers can tell the difference between the two and how. anand ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
+++ Kenneth Gonsalves [30/06/08 14:11 +0530]: > >I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS >is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that >the courts have to recognise this. > According to all FOSS licences, the software itself need not be available to be downloadable to public - only to the customer (You can't restrain your customers from distributing it though) But the essence being that all the rights the licences talk about, are that of the paying customer. If that is the case, why cannot one sell software with source along with all the other freedoms given by the licence? What is immoral about it? When you are using the term 'immoral', you mean it is the violation of certain principles/intent of the licence. What violation do you see here? - Sandip -- Sandip Bhattacharya http://blog.sandipb.net ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 3:39 PM, Raj Mathur wrote: > If someone wants to buy a FOSS package it is perfectly legal and, IMO, > moral to sell it to her. After all, the package remains doesn't > become > proprietary by the mere fact of sale -- it remains FOSS. question is: when you 'sell' FOSS do you charge VAT or do you charge service tax. We recently 'bought' a FOSS package for 3 lakhs. We were charged service tax to the tune of 36,000. If we had 'bought' a proprietary package we would have paid sales tax at 4% or 12,000. (at that time there was no VAT in tamilnadu). -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 30-Jun-08, at 3:49 PM, Dinesh Shah wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <> wrote: >> ultimately law is made by the supreme court. There is no such thing >> as 'settled law', laws are always subject to change - just needs a >> larger bench of the supreme court to do so. And when the court looks >> at any law, they look at the written law as well as such things as >> natural justice, equity, interests of the state, interests of the >> public in general and then they pronounce on the law. > > err... When have our honorable courts have become law makers? Any and > all courts only help the interpretation of law laid down by our > (dis?)honorable law makers namely - parliament and legislative > counciles of states. law comes from: 1. tradition or custom (common law) 2. Parliament and legislative assemblies 3. Ordinances from the executive branch 4. Judgements of the high courts and supreme court but ultimately the final arbiter and hence lawmaker is the supreme court (note the word ultimately in the quote). -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <> wrote: > ultimately law is made by the supreme court. There is no such thing > as 'settled law', laws are always subject to change - just needs a > larger bench of the supreme court to do so. And when the court looks > at any law, they look at the written law as well as such things as > natural justice, equity, interests of the state, interests of the > public in general and then they pronounce on the law. err... When have our honorable courts have become law makers? Any and all courts only help the interpretation of law laid down by our (dis?)honorable law makers namely - parliament and legislative counciles of states. > -- > regards > > Kenneth Gonsalves > Associate, NRC-FOSS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ With regards, -- --Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System -- Dan Quayle - "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On Monday 30 Jun 2008, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On 29-Jun-08, at 7:44 AM, Raj Mathur wrote: > [snip] > > Some licences like the GPL force you to provide source code for a > > nominal fee along with binaries at the user's request; > > I thought all OSI licenses force you to do this Once again, you need a competent lawyer to show you how various FOSS licences differ from each other. Some, like the GPL, force distribution of source when you distribute binaries. Others like BSD permit you to give and/or sell binaries made from FOSS source without any obligation to provide the source. > > however, that > > nominal fee applies to the source code, not to the binaries -- > > there is > > no limit on how much you can charge for the binaries. > > > > In short, not being able to sell FOSS is a limitation of the market > > (no > > one wants to buy it), rather than some intrinsic limitation in FOSS > > itself. > > I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS > is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that > the courts have to recognise this. So are you OK with giving proprietary software away for free? Should we be commending MS for making IE available for download for free? If someone wants to buy a FOSS package it is perfectly legal and, IMO, moral to sell it to her. After all, the package remains doesn't become proprietary by the mere fact of sale -- it remains FOSS. I believe that proprietary (close source) software it unethical and immoral. Not being a communist, I don't believe that just selling software is immoral or unethical. As long as the software remains open you are welcome to make money from in in any way you desire short of making it proprietary. You can give away free copies of proprietary software As for legality, I would only like to quote some statements from the GNU General Public Licence v2.0: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. ...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. If RMS and all of FSF is satisfied with expressly permitting charging money to distribute FOSS, I'm satisfied that it's legal and ethical. In short: Proprietary software is not the same as commercial software. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] FOSS: VAT or service tax [was] Bill Gates got Windows 1.0 source-code from trash-bin
On 29-Jun-08, at 7:44 AM, Raj Mathur wrote: >> and when you finally find a buyer for that bridge across the Yamuna >> don't forget to add octroi and VAT > > If you don't believe me, I'd suggest you get some competent lawyer to > read the various licences at opensource.org and explain to you how > none > of them prevents you from selling the software. if you are talking law, you would know that interpretation of statutes (and licenses, contracts etc) does not depend on the mere letter of the law. So by just examining the licenses, no lawyer, competent or not can give an opinion on this. there are two types of competent lawyers: 1. Those who look at the laws and court rulings and tell you what can be done within the confines of these laws 2. Those who look beyond what is written and work to create/develop the law on the relevant subject ultimately law is made by the supreme court. There is no such thing as 'settled law', laws are always subject to change - just needs a larger bench of the supreme court to do so. And when the court looks at any law, they look at the written law as well as such things as natural justice, equity, interests of the state, interests of the public in general and then they pronounce on the law. In the case of software in general and FOSS in particular, there is a school of thought that software is knowledge which belongs to mankind and can neither be bought nor sold. I happen to subscribe to that school of thought. And I know competent lawyers who also belong to that school of thought, who are working to get rulings from courts in these areas. So the question is: which type of competent lawyer should I approach? Further, there are two more problems here: 1. No two lawyers agree on anything. So how many opinions do I get? 2. A legal opinion is only worth anything if a fee is paid and the opinion is given on the firm letterhead and signed on every page. For an opinion on a matter so fraught with controversy and with huge financial implications, the fee would run to several lakhs - I cannot afford that. Anyway, the practical problem before us is that purveyors of FOSS have to charge service tax as they have been advised that FOSS software is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. Proprietary software vendors get away with VAT - as the rate of ST is 12% and VAT much lower, this puts FOSS vendors at a disadvantage. If we can get a strong enough legal opinion on this subject, then we too could charge VAT and become more competitive. Maybe we could get an opinion from Eben Moglen (only lawyer that I know of who is competent in this field). > > Some licences like the GPL force you to provide source code for a > nominal fee along with binaries at the user's request; I thought all OSI licenses force you to do this > however, that > nominal fee applies to the source code, not to the binaries -- > there is > no limit on how much you can charge for the binaries. > > In short, not being able to sell FOSS is a limitation of the market > (no > one wants to buy it), rather than some intrinsic limitation in FOSS > itself. I would tend to the opinion that sale of any software, let alone FOSS is illegal, immoral and an act of cheating - the only point is, that the courts have to recognise this. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
Re: [ilugd] [OT] Difference between cross-post and multi-post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ,--[ On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:58:31AM +0530, shirish wrote: | Hi all, | Another thing I know both the articles are written from usenet | perspectives. From what little I know usenet are the forefathers of | modern mailing lists, so the above should apply to mailing lists as | well I guess. Cross-posting and multi-posting make difference in newsgroup posting. I don't know how they're relevant in terms of mailing list. If you post a message to multiple newsgroups, by mentioning multiple newsgroups separated by commas, in 'Newsgroups' header, this is cross-posting. There is a 'Followup-To' header, where you specify, on which newsgroup, you want follow-ups to the posting. If you post a single message to multiple newsgroups, by creating separate postings, this is multi-posting. In case of cross-posting, only single message is submitted, which will show up in all posted newsgroups. If you've already read that message in one newsgroup, it'll be marked as _read_ for you by your NUA (news user agent), so if you came across that message in other newsgroups also, that message will already marked as _read_ . The cross-posting won't have desired effect (similar to newsgroups) in case of mailing lists, as these mailing lists operate in a different way from newsgroups. Although the only benefit with cross-posting in terms of mailing lists is that you get messages from different lists with same 'Message-ID' header. It depends on your MUA to figure out that whether these messages are cross-postings or not. HTH - -- ·-- ·- ·--- ·- ···- ·- ·--·-· --· -- ·- ·· ·-·· ·-·-·- -·-· --- -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhonXwACgkQHy+EEHYuXnTTlACeO1jTxDPB7Y1k/tNREYg5dDD3 A0QAoKDrcYUcQXGbKHT35TjB/ChmqIlu =7eDU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
