Re: License change vote results
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:23, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:05:50PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote: > > > > The obvious result of this vote is that my previous conclusion was > > > wrong: there is clearly widespread support in the community for a > > > copyleft-style license. With 2 out of 3 contributors in favor of the > > > switch, and less than 15% opposed to it, it's clear that we are going > > > to proceed with the change. > > > As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with > > codeweavers? I realize that they are a significant contributer, but > > as you are using the word "community", it's fair to ask > > a) how big that number is in total > > b) if there are large components in that number, they should > > be at least quantified. > > Do you believe affiliation should matter? If 66% of all contributors to > the public Wine tree voted in favor of the LGPL because 60% of all > contributors to the public Wine tree are on the Codeweavers payroll, does > that invalidate the conclusion that the community as a whole is in favor > of the LGPL? He raised a very interesting point. CodeWeavers wants this change for commercial reasons. They are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of the WINE project. It would be interesting to see how the numbers come out when all companies--it should be fair--are taken out of the total. If this is a community project, I would be interested in knowing how the community felt. For all we know, it might even be more sided with a license change. The reason I want to know is to see what kind of influence a company can have on an open-source project. Is it possible to take over or have strong influence over a project? Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jeremy makes a persuasive argument for LGPL
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:17, Roland wrote: > At 09:07 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Anthony Taylor wrote: > >Take, for instance, Microsoft's attempted hijacking of the Kerberos > >protocol. MS almost took an accepted standard, and almost perverted it > > Well, I think we are still better off as when M$ would have created their > own protcol from scratch. They certainly have the money to do that. The way > it is now, we just have to implement the extensions to be able to use > M$-Kerberos. I don't see where the BSD license has brought any kind of > disadvantage here. Actually, the open-sourced implementation changed their specification and forced Microsoft into explaining what they changed, but my memory about it is not the greatest. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jeremy makes a persuasive argument for LGPL
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:41, Roland wrote: > At 12:32 PM 2/15/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > >Exactly the opposite is true. When the (L)GPL is stamped > >onto code, every commercial programmer must reinvent > >the wheel rather than using it. Many of these programmers > >work for small businesses that are trying to compete > > Another good point from your side. > And here comes another question from my side: > The point in favor of the GPL as brought by Jeremy, is that the xGPL will > encourage contributions. I have to agree with Jeremie: with the BSD > license, companies will tend to keep things back. Look at Apples OS-X. It > is based on BSD, but they probably NEVER will make their code public. So > what benefit does the community have from it? They have release Darwin as well as an NFS testing tool. FreeBSD did benefit a lot from that testing tool. > Jeremie pointed out, that he wants to give all code produced in his company > back to the WINE-tree. Now if WINE is GPL he will have an excellent > argument for his customers: sorry, we have to contribute all code back. I believe he already stated that he currently requires that their code be contributed back to WINE. > If WINE is not GPLd, his customers will probably want to keep the code > proprietary, in order to have a competitive advantage over others... > What can you say about that Brett? I still don't understand the problem for Jeremy from a commercial stand point. His company is paid to develop code. Under either the BSD or LGPL, he would have the same situation. Besides, as the owner of a company, he can always decide not to develop code for those potential customers who wish to keep the resulting code closed. > Maybe there is another kind of license that could adress both issues...but > I doubt it... Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification on my call for license change
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:06, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > > And especially: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&selm=1szq0fy8sm.fsf_-_%40lrcsuns.epfl.ch > > OK, > > What about this: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ingo+Molnar+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&hl=en&selm=67ue48%24ajm%241%40palladium.transmeta.com&rnum=3 Linus's quote was quite interesting: I don't personally contribute - partly because of the same worries that Ingo Molnar brought up some time ago, ie the copyright. It's not that I dislike the wine copyright - I actually think that the BSD-style copyrights can be a good thing. But _personally_ I don't want to do significant work under that kind of copyright and having to wonder whether the best version of Wine will be free in the future.. That was almost the same as Brett's message concerning working on Wine if it was xGPL'd. > or this: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ingo+Molnar+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&hl=en&selm=349af265.0%40news.ic.sunysb.edu&rnum=9 This made me wonder about what happened to TWIN. I noticed they faded away. If anyone thinks xGPL'ing WINE will bring more support, they should look at TWIN. I am not saying the license killed it, but I am saying that the LGPL did not bring it any support. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:19, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > So now you've made your point, constantly, how about we just take it > > for granted that for every email sent to the list saying 'the gpl is > > good because...' you and Patrik will reply with 'No! It's evil, RMS > > is satan, viral licensing, noone will use it, blah blah blah' > > I have never said that. > I do admit that Brett Glass have said that. > However _I_ do not agree. He may have strong emotions against GNU licenses, yet I consider him more the opposite of Stallman. While Glass is strongly against GNU licenses, Stallman is strongly against closed-source. I think a good test of a license is how little lawyer-speak is in it: (WINE's license - texinfo at top) (GLIBC's LGPL) wc -l 19 482 BSD wins. :) Anyone have a Microsoft EULA, as a file, handy? Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:21, Brett Glass wrote: > At 02:13 PM 2/15/2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > >Listen Patrik, in the past you seemed to be a reasonable person. Now you > >are indistingushible from a troll. > > Hmmm. Since when does "troll" == "anyone who disagrees with a lemming-like > rush to the (L)GPL?" Although I would not have put it like that, I was also wondering when disagreement turned into trolling. Dimitrie O. Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Crap. What terrible price, WTF are you guys smoking, 'cause I want > some of it! Once again: Wine is isomorphous to a Linux distribution. > They are growing MUCH faster than Wine ever did. They have a lot of > commercial backers. Stop this stupid, idiotic, "LGPL will kill all > business" argument. Please people. Try to keep it civilized without all of the name calling. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification on my call for license change
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:11, Marcus Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:03:16PM -0600, Sean Farley wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48, Francois Gouget wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we write is double > > > > work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to > > > > rewrite something, since after all that is what we do.. Wouldn't we have > > > > it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The real question > > > > is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the DCOM code in > > > > the first place? > > > > > >No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the > > > DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in the first > > > place. > > > > Would CodeWeavers have written its typelib code if others had not > > created Wine? No. Wine was not written originally for financial gain, > > was it? If people make money off of something I do for free without > > desire of capitalizing on it, I do not see a problem. > > Actually you just can read up on earlier debates on google: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine That first post explained the general feeling I have: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&hl=en&selm=67gn87%24he4%241%40prds-grn.demon.co.uk&rnum=1 > Interesting is the year 1996 and this thread I think: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&threadm=58iip6%241an%40imp.serv.net&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGPL%2Bgroup:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine > > And especially: > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&selm=1szq0fy8sm.fsf_-_%40lrcsuns.epfl.ch Interesting. I definitely agree with Alexandre. You definitely did your homework. :) Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification on my call for license change
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote: > [...] > > Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we write is double > > work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to > > rewrite something, since after all that is what we do.. Wouldn't we have > > it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The real question > > is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the DCOM code in > > the first place? > >No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the > DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in the first > place. Would CodeWeavers have written its typelib code if others had not created Wine? No. Wine was not written originally for financial gain, was it? If people make money off of something I do for free without desire of capitalizing on it, I do not see a problem. >Because it seems to me that one of the main arguments of the BSD > proponents is that we are stupid and that we should have kept all the > code for ourselves. No one is claiming you are stupid. We may disagree, but that does not infer stupidity on others. Some on both sides may see the opposition as ignorant, but that does not mean stupid. > Maybe they are right. But which of the following two scenarios leads > to the more healthy Wine and Wine marketplace? > > * The one where we released our window-management code, did dll > separation work, added cross-process handle support, added cross-process > messaging, released our typelib code (essential for InstallShield/COM > support), released our true-type support, improved winelib and released > countless bug fixes. > > * Or the one where the public Wine has none of the above (unless new > volunters had magically sprung up out of thin air). > >Where would the first scenario, which appears to be what BSD > proponents advocate, leave the Wine community? Which one do Transgaming > and Lindows prefer? Do they really prefer not to benefit from any of our > code in the future? If they never had written it, would you have? Were you planning to? Was anyone going to write it? If any of these were yes, why did they stop? If I knew I was not going to have access to something, I would have just filed that away in my mind as non-existent and continued with my project. >The Wine competitive landscape has changed a lot in the past year, > and I believe that it is unpractical for us to continue releasing all > our code under the current license. >We could definitely turn our Wine proprietary but as the above > scenario illustrates this would be bad for the Wine community, including > for our competitors; even if they don't realise it. And I believe that > all Wine companies need a thriving open-source Wine. >That's why I think it is important for us (Wine community + > CodeWeavers + Transgaming + Lindows) to find a better solution. CodeWeavers does not sell a proprietary version of Wine. Correct? Revenue comes in from the service of writing code. Correct? How does it harm CodeWeavers to not have access to someone else's code? If a company needs it, you could just charge them for it. Correct? There was a comment about the phone companies in the U.S. a few years back concerning there dislike of people using modems too much and over-using the phone system. It was basically that the phone companies were the only companies known to complain about having too much demand. If you need to write more code as a service to another company, I see an opportunity to make more money. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification on my call for license change
On 15 Feb 2002 08:58, Jeremy White wrote: > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 09:49, Roland wrote: > > At 08:19 AM 2/15/02 -0600, Jeremy White wrote: > > >Several people have asked me to clarify my original post. > > > > I just don't understand one thing: > > How does your company expect to make money once WINE is xGPLed? If all your > > code has to be contributed back, why should I buy it from your company? > > > > Well, for one, we have a proprietary product that links to > Wine; we would continue to sell that. Why hasn't this already been GPL'd? Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:10, Roland wrote: > At 11:31 AM 2/8/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > >Perhaps a simple economic analysis would help to assuage those egos. > > [SNIP] > > >The (L)GPL destroys this delicately balanced symbiotic relationship by making > >it impossible for the vendor to add unique value. As a result, the scenario > >described above can't happen, and it's a lose/lose rather than a win/win. The > > I agree with most of what you said, but have a few NEW questions: > > 1. Companies that benefit from WINE in this way have no incentive to > contribute back. So why should they? That means that this kind of companies > are of no big help to WINE, so why should we help them with the licensing > scheme? Are you saying that because a company has no incentive to contribute that we should force them even though they (Lindows and TransGaming) are contributing? I do not mean to be rude, but that sounds a little spiteful. > 2. Companies like CodeWeavers that have a different business model > probably would share code back even with the xGPL. They don't lose > anything for doing it. And with the xGPL they don't have to fear that > a competitor will make money out of their work. If they will share regardless of the license, there is no reason to change the license for this. > In fact any producer of a Windows app is a potential contributer to > WINE, since he will help to make its app run under Linux. A xGPLed > WINE would help ensure that the improvements made by those companies > come back to the community. This of course without loss to the > contributer, since selling WINE will not be his business. The license can be BSD, X11, Apache, LGPL, GPL or MS-EULA and have the same effect on these companies, therefore, a license change for this reason is moot. > So after all it seems that maybe xGPL is an advantage, even if it prevents > some companies from making money from WINE. I have still not seen a good reason to change the license. > What do you think about that? Personally, I think the movement to change the license is political as I have yet to read a reason to change it that was not about enforcing code contributions. This is not including Jeremy's request which I think is commercial in nature. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing response and an idea
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:58, Christopher Dewey wrote: > Brett Glass wrote: > > > > The current license is far and away the best compromise. The > > (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain > > is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle. > > It's the best for you, perhaps. Jeremy White has expressed that > it's no longer the best compromise for *his* business model. You > clearly have no respect for that, but then you're not arguing > honestly here; you have a political agenda and an axe to grind. > Please do it elsewhere. The only problem is that we don't know what the problem is. We have been informed that Jeremy has a problem with the current license but not what the problem is. His solution is to change the license although it may not be in the best interest of Lindows and TransGaming. According to your inference to Brett, he would be showing them no respect to *their* business models. Sean P.S. I am not implying Jeremy is trying to do anything against either Lindows or TransGaming; I am just playing devil's advocate. IOW, no flames please. :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:20, Dan Kegel wrote: > Intellectual-property-oriented businesses might not be so happy > philosophically with the LGPL, but if you believe the arguments of > Patrik and Roger from Dec 18th or so, which say the LGPL is powerless > to prevent companies from linking in proprietary extensions, they > ought to be able to cope. If this is true, why change the license? The proposal to change the license sited that the LGPL would prevent this. Since it does not appear that it can, there is no reason to change what is working just fine. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:00, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:42:07PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote: > > > > The solution as I see it is for GPL/BSD/whatever programmers to > > > actually cough up something non-technical users not only would > > > use, but would *prefer*. *Then* support and selling binaries > > > becomes a worthwhile proposition. > > > you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the > > content. Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having > > assignment of the copyright. This allows them to change the license > > so that they can make a productized version. > > Since this is not the first time this mistruth show up in the > discussion here, I think a clarification is warranted. > > The second paragraph of section 1 of the GPL (v.2) states: > > 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. This means you may charge someone to transfer the code from you either via network, CD, floppy, etc at whatever price they are willing to pay. Remember that the code is "Free" and as such has no true owner to sell it. > The only limits that the GPL places on sales is that once someone has > received a copy of binaries from you, you can't sell them the SOURCE > at an additional cost that's higher than your distribution cost. Up > to that point, you can charge people whatever you want to for access > to GPLed *content*. You just don't have any power to make sure that > others don't sell that same content at a price lower than yours, or > even give it away. In other words, you can only sell "access to GPLed *content*". This is the same as saying you cannot sell the binaries (and included source) but can charge for the media (access). Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 02:21, Anthony Taylor wrote: > Brett Glass wrote: > > > At 10:37 PM 2/9/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> MANY of the best programmers on GPL or GPL-like projects are commercial > >> programmers in real life. > > > > This puts them at very serious risk. > > > > Sir, > > You have made this claim many times, and asserted various lawyers have > told you it is true. Please explain the details. The GPL and LGPL > specifically cover source code, * not* algorithms. How can the act of > reading *GPL source code expose you to liability, any more than reading > a novel can prevent you from writing your own? Apple sued Microsoft based on "Look-and-Feel". In this case, it was fortunate that Microsoft won. Lawyers are not compared to sharks for the heck of it. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I see no reason to change the license
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 18:32, David Elliott wrote: > On 2002.02.09 13:52 Sean Farley wrote: > > If you want to force the code out of others, a much stricter license > > than the LGPL or even the GPL will be required. Can anyone recommend > > one and have it still be open source? > > > I don't think we want to force the code out of others. Well, some people > do, but that pretty much requires GPL which is not an option at all and > shouldn't even be considered to remotely be an option. This whole discussion was started from the request to change the license to the LGPL to encourage companies to release their code. If they can easily get around the LGPL, what is the point of changing the license to it? Another license besides the LGPL and GPL needs to be found or written to be stricter than those two as those will not accomplish that goal. > Mainly what I'd like to be able to do is keep the proprietary stuff > seperate from the free parts of wine. The LGPL accomplishes this and this > is the LGPL's purpose, nothing more. That would be a different goal than what was proposed. > Of course if Lindows is nothing more than simple little one line bugfixes > all over the place in Wine then LGPL would make it difficult for them. If > they rewrote large portions then LGPL makes it easier for them. The first part is true. The second part is not; any open source license would do. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see no reason to change the license
Thinking it over. I see no benefit for a change to the LGPL. The main reason was to force companies to give WINE their changes and/or additions to the code. As several people have pointed out, they can get around this by writing API wrappers. Doing so they will have removed the only reason the LGPL was proposed in the first place. It would be quite easy to keep in sync with the WINE code base. A PERL script (or whatever) could be written to output a wrapper file. Another script could be used to make changes to any future code base to make use of the wrapper calls. As someone who did this for my last company (JAVA API using JNI calls to mirror their own C library), I can say this will take a minimal amount of work. They would only need to release the changes they made to the code (just the wrapper calls). If you want to force the code out of others, a much stricter license than the LGPL or even the GPL will be required. Can anyone recommend one and have it still be open source? Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:34, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote: > > > --Brett Glass (Who hasn't happened to contribute to WINE yet, but may do so if > > it remains open source) > > Could you have finished wiht a more dumb line? LGPL _is_ open source my > friend, go read about it first. > > I don't know about other people, but I'm so tired of these arguments where > LGPL is 'fascist', 'proprietary', 'not open source', etc. Once again, we > don't discuss what is important, but we keep arguing about mostly > irrelevant things, just like last time... :( I think xGPL is open source. I do not think it is Free. Personally, I dislike anything that is misleading. Low fat candy is a good example. 0g of fat with 1000 calories will not stay "low fat". I see freedom as allowing others to "speak" (code) as they see fit without requirements to give me their code. I do not see any GNU license allowing this. As Mr. Glass pointed out, Stallman said coders should code out of love and not money. If I want their code or money, I would put my code under the xGPL. If I do it out of love, I put it under a less-restricted license (BSD or X11). Dimitrie, remember that Mr. Glass is just as far on one side of the issue as Mr. Stallman. Maybe, Mr. Glass disgusts you. That would mean that the opposite, Mr. Stallman and his arguments, disgusts someone else. Just relax and take deep breaths. :) As should we all. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:26, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Douglas Ridgway wrote: > > > * LGPL may well be legal gibberish. Be sure to consult non-FSF lawyers > > as well as talking to the FSF. This is problematic because a gibberish > > license will discourage use. I know that I would be cautious linking > > source with a value of 100M against something LGPL, if I was worried about > > the risk that a judge might decide that by so doing I'd created a derived > > work, and thus had gnuified my entire source. > > This is so much FUD that even Microsoft would blush. If this would even be > a _possibility_, no comercial company would release products on Linux, > since they most likely link against glibc. I assure you the Oracle DB is > worth more than 100M... The lawyer currently contacted works for the FSF. Of course he thinks the LGPL is suitable. Contacting an outside (non-affiliated) lawyer is a wise thing to do. Since the LGPL has not been taken to court, no legal precedence for it has been set. Has something happened recently to change this? Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:54, David Wheeler wrote: > If the license isn't changed, Wine is going to continue to suffer from > code forks. Forks can happen with the LGPL and GPL. > The current license encourages companies to take Wine, make a > proprietary fix, and keep the result proprietary, ... No. It does not. I read nothing in the current license to *encourage* companies to do what you claim. > In my opinion, the LGPL more accurately reflects how most Wine > developers _actually_ work. I think many contibutors expect that > anyone who improves Wine itself will give those contributions back to > the community, while still allowing proprietary programs to use Wine > as a library or infrastructure. The LGPL merely changes this > expectation into an enforceable requirement. Expecting the world to always give you _ (fill in the blank), can lead to a depressing life. When I share, I don't expect someone to repay me. If I expect them to pay me back, then it is not sharing; it is just a loan or purchase. If I contribute to a open source project, I prefer it if everyone can use it freely (as in liberty - BSD license) without having to pay for permission. I know companies may use it without contributing back, but some will. The project will live quite well without them. Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine license change
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:13, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Seems Slashdot is fast today ;-) > > > They already have a thread about the proposed license change running. > > > One guy made an interesting suggestion: > > a "dual license" scheme (like MySQL uses) where you switch to (L)GPL, > > but certain companies are allowed to take code without contributing > > everything and their arms and legs back... > > If that's the wish of the Wine community (as opposed to the wish of a > group of armchair quarterbacks on Slashdot who've never written a line of > published code), then there's no need for a license change at all. The > present license allows one to take the Wine code and use/redistribute it > under the LGPL at any time. Does it matter if they have written code for Wine or not? I test out and attempt to debug bugs in Wine when they show up on FreeBSD. Let's just say that I have not been all that successful. :) If not, let me say that I see no reason to change the current license. The LGPL may push proprietary code from the Wine core, but it will just push it into DLL's. Remember that not everyone will contribute back. Why should you expect them to assuming you are not a Moonie? Maybe they have nothing to contribute back. Maybe they don't want to contribute back. Forcing them into sharing is not sharing. As for commercial interest, I see that Apache+modssl has done quite well against any closed-source versions. > The primary reason to convert the WineHQ repository to LGPL is if we want > to ensure that other companies/individuals don't contribute less back to > Wine than is required by the LGPL when they make modifications. If you > think that would be a bad thing, then vote against converting to the LGPL. I strongly dislike coercement of any sort when it comes to open source. I would like to vote to keep the license as is, but I am only a user and part-time open-source developer. It must be that armchair quarterback in me trying to come out. :) Sean -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
