On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 +
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work
of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a
non-limitative list of illustrations.
The enumeration illustrates the way
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
work of that dictionary.
So why are there numerous court
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you,
even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But
this lunatic fight to get
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:14:51 -0500
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank
you.
If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you
recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:29 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative
work of a dynamic
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:51:06 -0400
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this used as a counterargument against the claim that GPL is
a viral license (I don't use that term in a derogatory way, I thought
that was the whole point to the GPL!). However, the argument that I've
heard
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:12:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did not
sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of the law,
a company is a separate entity (a
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:08:41 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have
been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are
different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though.
He still has his property
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:10:25 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workers are also the licensees.
They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did
not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of
the law, a company is a
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:09:08 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because
it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no
intrinsic value.
You can't obtain GPLed
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of our friend Backslash,
I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the
following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling
me obscure names.
As you've
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:35:38 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the
CD, but the content.
The content does not exist
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having a hard time following your message, you speak of property
and ownership of software, neither of which are applicable to
software. You cannot own software; since you cannot own software, it
cannot be
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to
do with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to
you. Since you have not bought or
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the
decency to include the name of the author.
I said:
No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD.
You are not accessing that CD as
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful
copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright
holder can grant.
GPL or otherwise
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
software
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan writes:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to
accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in
lawful
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is netiquette. Group reply is common.
It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed
and posted in your reply if you do so.
If you have such a hard
time figuring out who wrote what,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under
the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and
for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead.
Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-)
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of
modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of
any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation
it is saying
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that
this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a
server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so
it would be legitimate
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:47:58 + (UTC)
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rui
Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in
using the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:39:10 + (UTC)
Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not aware of any other licences that prohibit further restrictions
on downstream recipients. As a more or less kind-hearted head of an
otherwise evil empire, you might be willing to give away your
credit to author #2, it stands to reason you should
give credit to author #1. Similarly, in an About topic it behooves to
credit all authors.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
A ship in the harbor is safe. But that's not what ships are built for.
-- Rear Admiral Dr
On 16 May 2006 19:43:56 -0700
Jacob JKW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
Authors retain the copyright to the code they wrote. How the code is
packaged has no bearing on that.
Showing copyright information when the program starts or is running
is not a prerequisite
enough, heed the wishes of the
authors of the stuff you used.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself.
-- Winston Churchill
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:17 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
derivative work of these libraries
for a violation of the license. Putting software under the
GPL can only be a problem if it contains non-original elements that
have a license that prohibits this. You do not have to honour the GPL,
it's those who receive it who have to abide by it.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
There's nothing wrong
of
transferring to a removable medium are copies, and because they are not
material to running the program, they would not fall under the relevant
exemption.
In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the courts
become crucial.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Q
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:31:18 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[... first sale ...]
In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the
courts become crucial.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
?
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
A ship in the harbor is safe. But that's not what ships are built for.
-- Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:35:50 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs
or DVDs, are subject to section 109
that there are a lot of
dishonourable people around who cannot resist the temptation...
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at
one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run
ones from time to time get clean diapers
.
AFAIK, most if not all European countries have what is more
accurately described as Author's Rights than Copyright laws.
Under these laws certain rights are inalienable, which is not the case
in the USA.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless
installs) a system library in the GPL sense if your program is based
on GNOME (i.e. requires a GNOME installation to compile and function).
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
He who will not reason, is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave. (Sir William Drummond
they might
like to argue that one should only be allowed to sell food if it's
served on genuine crockery with genuine cutlery.
The privilege of choice is with the customer. Still.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the
world
of its author.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless
managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than
chaos on the one hand and the reduction of alternatives to zero on the
other
work,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
___
gnu-misc
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:34:40 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you
can distribute the combined work under another license (or no
license at all, in which case standard
arguments? As a matter of fact, it removes what little
credibility you might have left.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
You know, it is almost always the case in the real world that something
is fair when you like it and unfair when you don't.
-- Jeffrey Siegal
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:22:18 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together
with 109), for example
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0500
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps you will have to write your own code.
Ouch! that sucks :)
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
When the need is strong, there are those who will believe anything
On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced
Rather funny practice in the context of the GPL you're talking about.
Most researches with the focus on industrial application (i.e
I see it, and how I believe a Court might see it.
Thus, if I were the copyright holder, I would not sue you in the first
case, and would most definitely sue you in the second case.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
I can understand that some people are cheap. I can't accept that
they also appear deeply
www.javaforge.com
Novell forge.novell.com
They have various services, such as SVN or CVS version management,
mailing list support, incident/bug reporting tools etc. I suggest you
spend some time on each site to see which suits you best.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Shun those who say we have eyes
the toll, but don't suggest that somehow my building the road
was amoral because now you can no longer bear to use the existing
public roads.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather
have one good soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts
what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
However:
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the
appearance of being a single evil genius? --Mel Rimmer
On 5 Sep 2006 12:33:24 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
Well I could, and it depends on the type of project I have planned. If
the project is not a commercial venture in any form, I have NO
PROBLEMS with GPLing it, provided I am not going to reuse some of the
original
the license
of one of them does not have an impact on the other.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in
the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
--H. L. Mencken
___
gnu-misc-discuss
indicate which meaning is implied.
It would seem that what constitutes an Operating System has always
been open to interpretation.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at
one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run
ones from
, Kernighan and
Pike would not have felt it necessary to qualify the term.
Both quotes indicate that already in the early 80s, operating system
had a broader meaning than merely the kernel.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn
with development
tools for MS-DOS.
Bundling development tools was so exceptional that all Unix vendors had
unbundled them by the early 90s.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils
in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- Thomas
influenced by Unix.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the
world? A: Because they don't know they're ignorant.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
do you think that the license of the example
would also apply to your library? Licenses aren't like viruses that
jump from library to library through example programs.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Modesty personified:
This was a thread between ignorant people until I jumped
a program that knows how to quote you'd be less
susceptible to foot-in-mouth disease.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils
in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- Thomas Reed
of either the libraries, or the language.
Unless source code is plagiarised, or a modification of an existing
work, it's original.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
And as crazy as this sounds, people tend to be able to manage systems
better if they have a good internal mental model of how the system
works
of that library. The OP is
proposing to add source code examples to his library. Assuming he did
not base his source on existing source code examples of Qt, these
examples are his original work, and not affected by the Qt, X, OpenGL,
or whatever other license.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
A human being should
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:04:23 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:10:45 +0200
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the distributor can prove that one typical use case for a
customer would be to let the code rot away without ever compiling or
linking it (indeed a typical use case for example code), then the
product does
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
library. I license my source code under a non-Free license to
Alex. He compiles my code, and links it with your
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format, and contains function
and/or system calls does not consist of revisions, annotations,
elaborations or other modifications
is absolutely fine. You could consider using the BSD
license for the examples, so that people can use them without
restrictions in their own developments.
Guys, thanks for all the information. It was quite a read.
It tends to get animated in here. Nice you didn't walk away in
despair :).
--
Stefaan
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:49:53 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs,
or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever
license he
have written
successful books, or produced successful research (like winning a Nobel
prize) you can use your fame to make money on the lecturing circuit.
This also works for failed politicians like Al Gore ;-)
That pliantly insane.
I think you mean patently insane -)
Take care,
--
Stefaan
for a small outfit (meaning you might be the
technical, commercial and legal heads rolled in one), you should look
at the contract you have, and clarify the issue with your customer.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are
putting us
.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
You don't have to spend the rest of your life
exercising yourself to death.
-- SPAM can be fun :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
to own one very, very small company :).
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which
could only have originated in California. --Edsger Dijkstra
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
should be considered property.
Some people do not believe that real estate (or certainly land) should
be considered property. Some people consider that companies should not
be property. What matters is what is accepted by a majority of people.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
A ship in the harbor is safe
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:19:39 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ter, 2006-12-05 às 22:21 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 +
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right
On 5 Dec 2006 22:07:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as
property. We have no problems considering land (real estate)
property
care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
I don't understand that attitude. Don't we want email that has dancing
bears, cute little videos, musical tunes, animated waving hands, sixty
fonts, and looks like it's been done with crayolas? Good grief, man,
think like a three year old! -- Norm Reitzel
with him isn't very nice, or useful.
Me tips hat. Thanks, kind sir.
My apologise for the obvious name mistake.
Moenie worrie nie, as they say in South Africa. You can't be right all
the time, now can you? :-)
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management
aggregation in the GPL.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
You don't have to spend the rest of your life
exercising yourself to death.
-- SPAM can be fun :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
becomes impossible, because then you cannot write those 10 characters
without the permission of the author of /foo/bar.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
When the need is strong, there are those who will believe anything.
-- Arnold Lobel
quoted 13 lines from it. How then can the source code of a program be
a derivative work when it merely references the header file? Or how can
(the source code of) a script be a derivative work of another script
when it contains the line:
. /a/gpled/script
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Object-oriented
scripts, whether they call other scripts through
script
. script
or
`script`
they remain IMHO wholly original works as long as you have not copied
code from these scripts.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
He who will not reason, is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:05:41 +0100
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't get it - one cannot write a (useful) 'C' program without a
few #include statements (which will cause the preprocessor to
import the header files). If that makes
.)
You can add your own copyright notice (which then also serves to meet
the requirement of clause 2a).
Of course you should leave the original copyright notices in place. You
don't want to create the impression you wrote the code, do you?
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Shun those who say we have eyes
#include type statements. As a person making a living
writing source code, I find that a very disturbing thought.
Take care,
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are
putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain
it.
There is this thing called fair use that exists.
If I understand your argument correctly, you're arguing that copying
13 lines from a file is fair use, whereas writing require file
makes the source code a derivative work of file.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Governments are like babies: digestive tracts
not have seen much progress in mathematics if patents would have
been granted on Newton-Raphson or FFTs.
One of the problems is that a lot of people discoursing on software
patents don't know what software is.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety
On 28 Dec 2006 06:59:04 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
Of course, a device that peforms a particular function, like a
vocorder, can be patented even if it uses a DSP chip and software.
You patent the complete device, not its components.
That's a clever
be copyrighted?
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Life itself is a misery and nobody can tell what can be of it.
Those that can tell what can be of it are those who cannot tell
us because they are far from us (dead). -- Very profound scam
___
gnu-misc-discuss
because there is only one way in which a
compiler can be written and hence you can do with the gcc code as you
please.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless
managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than
chaos
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:04:19 -0500
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:19:17 -0500
But only an idiot without knowledge about programming can argue that
because a program performs the same well-defined function as another
program (i.e
89 matches
Mail list logo
