Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The word exclusive means only the owner and *no one else* may
do and authorize. The word authorize is at the heart of all
copyright licenses. Because of this fact, BSD licensed code forever
remains under the BSD license unless the *owner* should choose to
re-license
I had figured that Rjack was saying that terms in the GPL are
unenforceable because they are illegal.
But now, in his latest posting, he seems to be saying the opposite: that
terms in the GPL are illegal because they are unenforceable.
Which is cyclic enough that nobody will ever win this
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.
Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality.
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term
illegal changed with a change contexts, that a little something
would
Rjack has outdone himself.
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to
Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
This is a case about an
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle
distinction between use in the context of patents and that of
copyrights. The patent grant states:
[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]
More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
has not yet happened to Rjack.
Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly).
I
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and
have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with
a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.
The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in
Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.
I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly
relevant to the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for
this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further
discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined
term.
Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for?
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!
You have pointed out a
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I wrote:
Did you all notice this major shift in Rjack's position?
Previously, he was content to claim that the GPL is merely
unenforceable... So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL
contains illegal terms!
Rjack now does a little backpedalling:
1)
Having declared the GPL to have not only unenforceable terms, but also
illegal terms, Rjack is now trying to save the situation by quoting
answers.com and merriam-webster.com.
Has the Second Circuit's recent role as the leading authority on the
common law of contracts been usurped by these
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Sure, but the hollering about GPL is not enforceable is beside
the point
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term against a
defendant regardless of whether the defendant
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S.
copyright law. The fact that the CAFC ignored it's own precedent
simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC has no
copyright law precedent.
Rjack is assuming that stare decisi applies only to
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term illegal. In
the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to
unenforcable or invalid or any other word that boils down to being
unable to recover damages.
Rjack, he's posting this
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
American common law is historically based upon English
common law:
1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows:
. . .
22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
You could just as validly argue that it must have been a large amount,
because if it was small, TomTom would be announcing the amount.
In reality, typically in a settlement over this kind of business
litigation, if one side wants the terms kept
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
The only conclusion drawing has been from you--you've concluded that
because you don't know the details, it must have been a tiny
settlement.
Whenever anyboby acts in a manner contrary to his normal behavior, we
should look for an explanation.
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
At the Software Freedom Law Center Eben Moglen should announce, At
the S.F.L.C. propaganda is our most important product.
Only if Tom-Tom really is the loser.
But what if Tom-Tom paid Microsoft only $1.00?
There are those that will argue that Tom-Tom paid a lot
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alexander is trying to explain to you that a requirement qualifies
as a condition precedent to a copyright grant if and only if the
requirement *must* occur *before* the grant of rights becomes
effective (contract performance). Obviously, the requirement
cannot
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul, do you really believe that you can cause source code to to
be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License *before* you ever distribute a copy of the
source code to be licensed to those third parties?
If you really
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Since the license is strictly construed against the drafter the
license, because of promissory estoppel, would provide a defense to
copyright infringement.
As I recall, when I asked you for what was promised, I got no answer.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack u...@example.net claims that promissory estoppel would be
a defense to copyright infringement of a GPL-licensed work because
of the following alleged promise:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes, following up to Rjack:
How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the
parties involved?
Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading.
Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject
heading. See
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
The CAFC's decision has not been overruled, and therefore stands.
Wait a minute...I thought Rjack had overruled the CAFC, repeatedly,
under a variety of subject headings?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
If something has no commercial value, being free as in beer...
GPL software is supposed to be free as in free speech, not free as in
free beer.
And also:
The commercial value of software is determined not by what the license
states, but by what it would cost
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPLv3 is clear as mud. ...
It seems clear enough to me
A program which is written to use a library is not a derivative work
of that library...
I did not find the phrase derivative work in the GPL v3 text. I found
it in v2,
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I did not find the phrase derivative work in the GPL v3 text. I found
it in v2, but you are discussing v3, are you not? If so, it would be
better to stick to the language in GPL v3.
...
That term, derivative work, comes from copyright
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
If you think that a public contract of adhesion such as the GPL is
going to establish a new rule controlling the *distribution* of
derivative works then you are clearly mistaken:
The GPL is just a bunch of words. A bunch of words is not by itself a
contract.
That
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
DE FOREST RADIO TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 273 U. S. 236 (1927)
...
Jacob Maxwell Inc., v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1997).
...
...Seventh Circuit's ruling:
Rjack, you seem to be trying to learn and argue basic concepts of
contract law by reading and quoting
I wrote:
The federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, may sometimes apply
state contract law, but they do define or develop it and they do not
establish the meanings of common-law terms. For all that they must
defer to the state courts.
Typographical correction: but they do define or
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Please don't spank me Professor Dhesi. I was probably reading the ALR's
Restatement of Contracts and Corbin on Contracts when you were still
peeing in a diaper.
If that is true, it would explain a lot. You would have been doing what
you claim to have probably done
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).
Neither the Artistic License nor the GPL cleanly fit these models
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Well... there weeent the goalposts.
Out to the fifty yard line...
A perceptive observation.
The evolution of the GPL from revision 1 to 2 to 3 doed reflect shifting
goalposts, designed to adjust to changing conditions. No doubt there
will be a
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
GNU fans never lose, they just mooove the goalposts.
I feel your pain. Asking for the maximum possible, and then settling for
a lot less, is a common strategy that is, unfortunately, embedded into
the adversary system of justice.
Rjack, if it were
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I have made a consistent claim in a long history of internet
postings that, The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law.
These posts consist of legal reasoning presented in the general form
of the arguments that are presented in U.S. courts. These arguments
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
What is kind of interesting here is that the GPL purists, notably SJVN, a
Linux blogger of note, is insisting that TomTom be barred from making any
kind of patent deal with Mr. Softee
Welcome to the workings of the adversary system of justice. Maybe this
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL
as a contract in such a case.
Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.
Does every contract require a signature?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's my citation:
...abandonment of a contract can be accomplished only through mutual
assent of the parties, as demonstrated by positive and unequivocal
conduct inconsistent with an intent to be bound
[ no public link ]
That citation will not help you.
You
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I think you're confusing conditions qualifying performance of a
contract with rescission of a contract but I can't be sure.
You can be sure. I'm not, you are.
You are ignoring the plain language of the GPL where is says provided
that several times, and will
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Unfortunately, if you wish to refute my cited authority of Graham v
James you'll have to do it on your own dime. The case *clearly* refutes
automatic termination due to breach so either you haven't read it or
are incapable of understanding it. Alexander Terekhov
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The opinion that you so triumphantly cite states: Graham and
James orally agreed to the licensing agreement and did not
clearly delineate its conditions and covenants.
A case about an unclear oral agreement -- that's all you can come
up with?
But the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
As I asked before: Is this the best you can do?
As I previously stated , it was all I needed to do -- correctly cite
the applicable law. I can't force you to learn or comprehend.
You haven't cited law
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Also there is no evasion of an interpretation of the GPL since
the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense
...
Would the GPL be construed as a
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
That's not even wrong -- the SFLC raises the existence of the GPL
license in their Complaint. The defendant need not claim compliance
or for that matter need plead *anything*:
Copyright disputes involving only the scope of the alleged infringer's
license present
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Here's a nice link from Australia (which follows English common
law same as in the US) that explains the difference:
http://law.anu.edu.au/COLIN/Lectures/frust.htm
...
Here's a nice citation from the Second Circuit that demonstrates
that a termination of the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
A dismissal with prejudice just means you can't refile for a
violation that has already occurred. You can always refile for
violations occuring after that.
Rjack, how come you don't cite cases when amicus_curious gets the
law wrong?
OK Rahul. Here's your
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I don't know that they are afraid of Verizon, I think that they do
understand the meaning of dismissed with predjudice though and have no way
to complain of Verizon distributing executable code for Actiontec routers
that is not accompanied by any source code
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com writes:
Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon
server? If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source
available upon request from a customer. If the binary isn't on a Verizon
server then Verizon has no obligations
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
[ About whether a file that is being distributed reside on a server
owned by Verizon ]
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I don't see this distinction in the GPL anywhere.
The distinction isn't in the GPL, it's in copyright law.
No, copyright law grants a monopoly on what
Rjack u...@example.net presents another irrelevant citation:
Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions
The GPL is very clear that its conditions are conditions. From version 2,
and note the parts that I have
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ original on the topic of conditions versus covenants ]
Any attempt otherwise to [do other things] will AUTOMATICALLY
TERMINATE your rights under this License.
[A] breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission
of a contract
Uh-oh.
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it...
Permission alone is not a promise. What is the writer of the GPL
promising to do or not to
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
Permission is a voluntary waiver of a legal right
...
The waiver of a legal right also constitutes consideration for a
promise:
'In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another
party is a sufficient
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference between a scope
of permitted use restriction and a condition precedent to a grant
of rights...
But the defendants' legal counsel do, and have apparently decided that
your argument doesn't apply. And the CAFC, in
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast,
generally affect only their parties...
...
The GPL is a contract...
As such it involves rights in rem that affects all
persons. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control...
[ various other
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Our company has a strict rule that we are not allowed to use anything
that is connected to the GPL. The MIT license is OK though.
Having such a strict rule is neither necessary not sufficient.
An ethical person won't misappropriate copyrighted software
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ out-of-context quotes again ]
...
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions
and in this case.; ATARI,
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by the
relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can be
discerned, and not require the district court here to follow
conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other circuits.
Let me try to
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that you are misreading the situations. Certainly a copyright
owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it
away. That makes sense. But the BusyBox authors are totally willing
to give their work away and have been doing so
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Section 3 of the GPL incorporates Section 2 which is rendered
unenforceable due to 17 USC 301(a)
Copyright invalid because federal law supersedes state law? What a
headline that would make.
Now if you could only get some defendant to actually argue this.
And
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Exactly, if you choose to distribute *their* work then there are
conditions. What's wrong with that?
The conditions are silly and useless, making the authors appear to be the
same.
To the person who wishes to misappropriate somebody else's coyprighted
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, for
example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
FOSS folk seem to want them to do...
Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[ quoting a blogger ]
Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and
incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and
they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.
...
The FSF's apparent lack of vision will
lead to the
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and
its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a
legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense and at the end of the day
they will be remembered as being
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
...If takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
to hide their wrong-doing.
--
I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use
it, fine, and if
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.
Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is
the enforcement of meaningless requirements
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits
(including its own
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
--
They suggested that the requirements were not meaningless to the
copyright holders who get a thrill out of seeing their name in print,
but that is meaningless to me. I think that it speaks
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk
getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software is some kind of
religious experience?
There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to free
software. Enforcement
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Your baseline is wrong. You can always pick two points A and B and
claim a positive difference. If somebody starts beating you, and then
stops, you can claim that the stopping is a positive difference and
that you are therefore victorious. This is not how
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Your baseline is wrong.
No, it's not. How else should GPL enforcement work?...
A disingenuous question.
A victory occurs where potential wrong-doers get the message that if
they violate the GPL for a period, they will end up with a net
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Which plaintiff has has ever paid any damages in a GPL case? Please
show the court's decision or a settlement agreement of record.
First we saw confusion between standing and subject matter jurisdiction.
Now we see confusion between plaintiff and defendant. What
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Actually this by itself is not victory.
I'm not privy to the details of the settlement; it's possible
that more was done. As outside observers, availability of the
source is the only thing we can see.
Since we don't know the whole story
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Since we don't know the whole story, let's not assume victory.
I don't see why not. It remains a fact that anyone who now gets
an Actiontec router has the GPLed firmware source code available,
whereas that was once not true
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Why would I want to try that Rahul?
Just read the prevailing law in the Second Circuit where the SFLC
filed its Busybox suits:
...Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is
not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have
squarely held that
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The district court had no jurisdiction because the SFLC's plaintiffs
had no standing...
The Busybox plaintiffs had no standing to invoke the district court's
jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had no copyrighted works registered
with the Copyright Office. You can
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Why not just honestly admit that the Busybox plaintiffs had no
standing to file their frivolous, propagandistic lawsuits and be
done with the matter Rahul?
You are entitled to your opinion. None of the defendants in these cases
seem to share that opinion, since
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The Verizon lawsuit involved no registered copyrights. The copyright
infringement claims were without standing to even be heard in
federal court so 17 USC 512 is *utterly irrelevant*...
References, please. Why would one need registration to get standing?
Were you
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
References, please. Why would one need registration to get
standing?
Were you maybe confusing between jurisdiction and standing? Even
so, references, please.
Why troll today? Bored Rahul? You participated in this thread:
My participation isn't what one
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Rjack wrote:
If SFLC and GPL supporters want to argue victory
AT the end of the Verizon case, the router manufacturer made
the GPLed software available, where it had not been available
before the case.
Actually this by itself is not victory. It means that
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
References, please. Why would one need registration to get
standing?
Were you maybe confusing between jurisdiction and standing?
Even so, references, please.
...
How about a good law article from the SSRN or one of the online
law reviews?
Use your mouse
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
But this doesn't explain why you seem to think that the license
should use US-specific language.
One tactic of trolling is to endlessly ask why questions
especially concerning other's motivations. Perhaps you should simply
state your reasons why I shouldn't
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
I live in a U.S. jurisdiction...
I will continue to legally interpret the GPL under US copyright law...
You provided a good explanation of why, if you were writing a license,
you might use US-specific language.
But you haven't given a good reason why the FSF, when
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
But you haven't given a good reason why the FSF, when drafting a
license to be used globally, should make it US-specific.
You have won Rahul!!!
You have totally stumped me. I can't give a good reason for a global
FSF license -- the idea of a globally
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The FSF and GPL3 tries to pull a fast one by substituting the term
convey for the term distribute as it is used in 17 USC 106(3)...
Some might think it wise to use terms not specific to US law for
software that will get worldwide propagation. Please explain why
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Some might think it wise to use terms not specific to US law for
software that will get worldwide propagation. Please explain
why you seem to disagree.
Attempting to use a license for worldwide propagation (presumably
for one vast World Socialist Order) under
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
That seems like the start of a cute trick. If I make a copy from a
legitimate source, then it is a legitimate copy that I can give away. I
cannot copy it, but I can give it away. So if I make a million copies
directly from the legitimate source, I have a
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
As the United States Supreme Court unequivocally stated, ...It goes
without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.
Can a person a non-party lawfully distribute GPL software?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
...
That's what free software aims to accomplish, and that
you find it preposterous says more about you than about the FSF.
Indeed it does, as does the odd observation that people criticizing free
software in this forum are more likely to
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes of GPL violators as poor souls:
But these poor souls are simply using embedded Linux/Busybox in lieu of
more conventional Linux/GNU Utilities to run their applications. There
is no benefit to the community of any real significance in harassing
them over adding
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Downloading constitutes a manifestation of assent.
So if the downloader doesn't know about the license, or knows about it
but explicitly refuses to agree to it as he does the download, this is
still a manifestation of assent?
Merriam-Webster says assent
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Next thing you know you'll be calling a copyright license a contract:
I'm staying out of this license/contract debate, but since you are not,
how do you justify calling it a contract in the specific case that the
person downloading GPL software hasn't agreed to the
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Why would anyone really care unless there were some benefit to be
obtained by the author due to the right to control the distribution?
The copyright act contains language such as ...to distribute copies or
phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think that the issue of consideration is paramount. The copyright
laws exist to protect the author's ability to benefit from the author's
artistic cleverness. If the author chooses not to benefit in a
conventional way, the benefit that is expected must at
Rjack writes:
Aren't you a being a little presumptuous when you simply ignore the
doctrine of promissory estoppel when considering a failed license?
What's the promise here?
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ trolling begins again ]
Out-of-context quotes coming soon.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
