On Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 0:27:12 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Touche', I had indeed momentarily forgotten that. I had also at the
time spoken rather pointedly to my senators and
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to
take individual actions.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to
take individual actions.
Thank you. Precisely my point.
Mike
--
Mike McCarty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually
choose to
take individual actions.
Thank you. Precisely my point.
And more to
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to
take individual actions.
I don't know how it works in
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 10:40:19AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually
choose to
take
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who individually choose to
take individual actions.
I don't
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:54:03PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Well, since we are in FULL TOPIC DRIFT MODE, there is a Navy
chaplain who is on hunger strike here in the USA because he
has been ordered not to pray in public in uniform in the name
of Jesus Christ. He claims that this is not a
Carl Fink wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:54:03PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Well, since we are in FULL TOPIC DRIFT MODE, there is a Navy
chaplain who is on hunger strike here in the USA because he
has been ordered not to pray in public in uniform in the name
of Jesus Christ. He claims that
Ron Johnson writes:
I don't know how it works in the post-modern EU, but in the rest of the
world, if you choose not to obey orders from the leaders you have sworn
to obey...
_Chosen_ to swear to obey.
...the coercive power of the state lands full square on your shoulders.
The individual
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 14:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
I don't know how it works in the post-modern EU, but in the rest of the
world, if you choose not to obey orders from the leaders you have sworn
to obey...
_Chosen_ to swear to obey.
...the coercive power of the
On Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 13:01:05 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
richard writes:
Regrettably, the individuals who control armies and police forces make
more difference.
Armies and police forces consist of individuals who
Ron Johnson writes:
Why is it that thugs can extort protection money from small business
owners? Because to those businessmen, the pain of losing that business
which his life is poured into, and which supports his family is greater
than giving away some money.
Exactly. And so they choose to
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 16:31 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
Why is it that thugs can extort protection money from small business
owners? Because to those businessmen, the pain of losing that business
which his life is poured into, and which supports his family is greater
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:47:28PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Really? I heard him interviewed on the radio within the last
week. Do you know the outcome?
The Navy Lieutenant declared victory, even though the Navy didn't change its
policy.
See http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/11/0555252.shtml
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel? Do we have to stop
distributing the kernel until we've done so? Is it time to revive
the non-US repository so that at
hendrik writes:
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
No (that patent is not new).
Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so?
No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
John Hasler wrote:
Don't forget non-DE as well.
Why de ?
AFAIK European Parliament rejected the proposed software patent
directive on 6 July 2005.
Is there something specific about Germany ?
cheers,
theo.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
John Hasler wrote:
hendrik writes:
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
No (that patent is not new).
Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so?
No. The kernel probably infringes
I wrote:
Don't forget non-DE as well.
Theo writes:
Is there something specific about Germany ?
Games.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote:
No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents.
Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the
owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Marty writes:
Does this policy also determine the non-free designation
A work that infringes a
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hendrik writes:
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
No (that patent is not new).
They can pry my FAT from my cold dead... ohhh,
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hendrik writes:
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
No (that patent is not new).
They can pry my FAT
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hendrik writes:
Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
anyway. Do we have
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Unfortunately, my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent. and
its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the act of
writing a FAT system. If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system
is a clean-room creation and
John Hasler wrote:
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard. Who decides what's likely?
Who is us? Does us include billions of Chinese and Indians?
Furthermore, does this policy
Andrew Sackville-West writes:
...my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent.
They intend to enforce it against manufacturers of NVRAM storage devices:
there's money there.
...its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the
act of writing a FAT system.
It's
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which Patent? What is the date?
Stolen from Cnet talkback posting:
Thanks for the reply.
According to http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp they are
talking about 3 Patents
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:01:54 -0500
Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, archive your debian box, then reformat and run windows
until this issue is settled.
I've been looking for an excuse to do just that. Windows is clearly a superior
operating system. And now that all out FAT belong to them
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:55:52 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure the anit-monopoly guys will have something to say about this.
A patent is a legal monopoly enforced by the courts.
The issue raised on /., that purveror of all great knowledge and wisdom, was
that a
Andrew Sackville-West:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of
patents. Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of
evidence that the owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that
Jochen Schulz wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West:
[snip]
If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a
clean-room creation and would probably be okay.
No, you are confusing the patent system with copyright. A patent covers
*an idea*, not an implementation.
IANAL, but I did
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09:07 -0600
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jochen Schulz wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West:
[snip]
If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a
clean-room creation and would probably be okay.
No, you are confusing the patent system
One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the patents
only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file system to
simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital cameras don't fall
under the patent. the dcf specifcation (http://www.exif.org/dcf.PDF)
I wrote:
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include billions of Chinese and Indians?
US patents
Mike McCarty:
No, you are confusing the patent system with copyright. A patent covers
*an idea*, not an implementation.
-- snip
Ideas are not patentable (in the USA).
You are probably right, I must have confused this. Although I find the
distinction not to be easy, at least when software
On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working
implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree.
Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to
roughly describe an implementation. There are actually a lot of
http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/g120005.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html
Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions. [0]
any new and useful process, machine, manufacture...
Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works. [0]
John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents.
Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the
owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Marty writes:
Does this policy also determine the non-free designation
A work
John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include billions of Chinese and
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0500, Marty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include billions of Chinese and Indians?
US patents have nothing to do with them.
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 19:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0500, Marty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu:
On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working
implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree.
Actually, that requirement was dropped awhile ago. You only have to
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 08:30 pm, loos wrote:
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 17:16 -0500, Michael Marsh escreveu:
On 1/11/06, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you definitely have to come up with some soft of working
implementation, be it hard- or software, I agree.
Actually,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0500, Marty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include billions of Chinese and Indians?
US patents have nothing to do
Hal Vaughan a écrit :
But Zero-point energy works.
I know it does.
I saw Colonel Carter working with a zero-point module on Stargate SG1.
Hal
I saw her too, it's a huge power source. You can even create a vortex to
another galaxy.
Vincent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 03:26 +0100, Tokar wrote:
Hal Vaughan a écrit :
But Zero-point energy works.
I know it does.
I saw Colonel Carter working with a zero-point module on Stargate SG1.
Hal
I saw her too, it's a huge power source. You can even create a vortex to
another
Jason Michaelson wrote:
One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the
patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file
system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital cameras
don't fall under the patent.
Personally, if someone
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 09:55 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
Jason Michaelson wrote:
One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the
patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an 8.3 file
system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital
Marty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
Marty writes:
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
Who decides what's likely? Who is us?
Debian.
Does us include
loos wrote:
[snip]
Debian is international, but like any other person juridic or physic it
can be sued for infringe a law in the country where it infringes this
law.
Or even in other countries. Noriega was arrested by US forces in Panama,
where he lived, for violating laws passed by the USA,
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09:07 -0600
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise, the clean room argument made above by Andrew is
inapplicable to a patent. What is covered by the patents I
read would (IMO) preclude anyone from creating LFN entries in a
FAT style
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:31, Mike McCarty wrote:
loos wrote:
[snip]
Debian is international, but like any other person juridic or physic
it can be sued for infringe a law in the country where it infringes
this law.
Or even in other countries. Noriega was arrested by US forces in
Also, bear in mind that at one point, panama was our territory, but I'm
not sure if Noriega actually did some of his drug related stuff while
it was still our territory.
No. Panama has been an independent nation since it seceded from Colombia
in 1903. Perhaps you're referring to the
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:31, Mike McCarty wrote:
loos wrote:
[snip]
Debian is international, but like any other person juridic or physic
it can be sued for infringe a law in the country where it infringes
this law.
Or even in other countries. Noriega was
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
[snip]
Also, bear in mind that at one point, panama was our territory, but I'm
Nope. Never was. It was a part of Venezuela, and we helped it get
I can't believe I wrote that. It was *Colombia*, of course.
Mike
--
On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, bear in mind that at one point, panama was our territory, but
I'm not sure if Noriega actually did some of his drug related stuff
while it was still our territory.
No. Panama has been an independent nation since it seceded from
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Touche', I had indeed momentarily forgotten that. I had also at the
time spoken rather pointedly to my senators and representatives about
the absurdity of it, and that it should be stepped on at the
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 22:28 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Marty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
Marty writes:
[snip]
If their laws have nothing to do with Debian, then
59 matches
Mail list logo
