* [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
@ 2003-08-27 20:33 Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
2003-08-28 13:49 ` Lars Weiler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Lafoucrière @ 2003-08-27 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo-dev
will the gentoo website participate to the online manifestation ?
like :
http://apache.org/
http://linuxfr.org
Debian, Gimp, Indymedia, OpenOffice, Savannah, GNOME, KDE, Mandrake, ...
1900 websites currently
more info here :
http://swpat.ffii.org/
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-27 20:33 [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules Philippe Lafoucrière
@ 2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
2003-08-28 13:49 ` Lars Weiler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Markus Nigbur @ 2003-08-27 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: lafou; +Cc: Gentoo-dev
On 27 Aug 2003 22:33:32 +0200
Philippe Lafoucrière <lafou@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> will the gentoo website participate to the online manifestation ?
>
> like :
> http://apache.org/
> http://linuxfr.org
> Debian, Gimp, Indymedia, OpenOffice, Savannah, GNOME, KDE, Mandrake,
> ... 1900 websites currently
>
> more info here :
> http://swpat.ffii.org/
> http://petition.eurolinux.org/
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
it was under discussion, but afaik got rejected.
Aug 27 21:29:06 <@cybersystem> klieber: hey, can you make a newspost or
whatever about the patent protest? (look at debian.org, gentoo.de,
gimp.org......... if you want to know what i mean)
Aug 27 21:33:33 <@klieber> cybersystem: personally, I don't really
want to get involved with that. what's been the general consensus on
the -core thread I haven't been following?
Aug 27 21:33:42 <@pfeifer|work> klieber: how about professionally?
Aug 27 21:33:56 <@klieber> pfeifer|work: nope -- not that way,
eithe.r
Aug 27 21:34:17 * klieber happens to support software patents.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
@ 2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 9:29 ` Paul de Vrieze
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Matt Chorman @ 2003-08-27 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 02:13 pm, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2003 22:33:32 +0200
> Aug 27 21:34:17 * klieber happens to support software patents.
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
It's amazing to me that any open-source developer would agree with software
patents. Just on a random search of the US patent office, I found that I (and
probably each and every one of you) are guilty of patent infringment - daily.
Have you ever used a computer to initiate a remote session - ssh? vnc? X?
Look up patent 6,611,865. Be thankful HP hasn't started suing everyone under
the sun.
While you're at it, look up 6,611,268. Then look up all patents where the
Assignee is Microsoft or HP. Then think about the implications of the SCO
lawsuit and what these companies can do if the courts don't reject SCO's
argument. There is a major differnese between software patents and
copyrights. Copyright=good. Software patent=bad.
/me crawls back into his hole
--
Matt
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7D81740A
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
@ 2003-08-27 22:48 Joshua Brindle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Joshua Brindle @ 2003-08-27 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-core, Gentoo-dev, Lafoucrière, Philippe
I vote yes on this
Joshua Brindle
>>> Philippe Lafoucrière <lafou@wanadoo.fr> 08/27/03 03:33PM >>>
will the gentoo website participate to the online manifestation ?
like :
http://apache.org/
http://linuxfr.org
Debian, Gimp, Indymedia, OpenOffice, Savannah, GNOME, KDE, Mandrake, ...
1900 websites currently
more info here :
http://swpat.ffii.org/
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
@ 2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 4:10 ` Luke-Jr
2003-08-28 8:59 ` Sven Vermeulen
2003-08-28 9:29 ` Paul de Vrieze
1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2003-08-28 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: matt, gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3184 bytes --]
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 10:35 pm, Matt Chorman wrote:
> It's amazing to me that any open-source developer would agree with software
> patents.
The current software patent system you have over there in America has been a
source of much merriment on this side of the pond over the last few years ;-)
At least, it was until the beaurocrats over here decided it was a good idea
to install something similar :(
Personally, I believe that some form of IPR protection is morally right, no
matter what the field of endeavour. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have
invented a creditable form of IPR protection which would seem fair in the
computing world.
Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer.
(Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have no
idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not) Why shouldn't they
be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it? Never mind
the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals.
Now let's look at the music industry as a parallel. Songs aren't patented (at
least, I've never heard of one that is :), but they are copyrighted. The
performance is copyrighted. The original music is also copyrighted, often
seperately. So, if you wanted to use a sample of Hendrix on your own song,
you'd need permission from whoever holds the copyright to the actual
*performance* that you've sampled. But, if you want to publish your own
performance of a Hendrix song, you need permission from whoever owns the
copyright to Hendrix's original music.
> While you're at it, look up 6,611,268. Then look up all patents where the
> Assignee is Microsoft or HP. Then think about the implications of the SCO
> lawsuit and what these companies can do if the courts don't reject SCO's
> argument. There is a major differnese between software patents and
> copyrights. Copyright=good. Software patent=bad.
The *system* you've got is bad. It is without any sense of balance. But
remember: it's your system, put in place by your government. And its the
citizens who put the government in place (well, it used to work that way once
;)
Protection for IPR itself isn't a bad concept. It's been a key part of the
commerce-based way of life in the West since before 1449 AD. Stopping the
current software process patenting nonsense is good and worthy. But the need
*is* there, as well as the moral right, and this is where campaigners such as
yourself always fail to convince me.
Propose and demonstrate a creditable alternative legal framework for IPR
protection, and you'll have my vote.
But until then ...
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2003-08-28 4:10 ` Luke-Jr
2003-08-28 10:29 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 8:59 ` Sven Vermeulen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2003-08-28 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Stuart Herbert, matt, gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 28 August 2003 01:44 am, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer.
> (Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have
> no idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not) Why shouldn't
> they be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it? Never
> mind the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals.
You do realize what patents are, right? This would be like saying just because
HP invented remote access first, noone else can invent it independantly. Even
if someone does invent something, they should only have exclusive right to
use it for 10 years, and only if they tell others how to create it. I don't
see how you could believe anything else (at least as far as the patents are
concerned) is morally acceptable, let alone see the other view as immoral.
- --
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/TYCwZl/BHdU+lYMRAoe6AJ4r3k/XtNmjMEMimWxsOlTaZ5+8egCfbz/R
vMjRnrWlMCzRbDJIENd/Z8k=
=5Ugw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 4:10 ` Luke-Jr
@ 2003-08-28 8:59 ` Sven Vermeulen
2003-08-28 11:28 ` Stuart Herbert
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Sven Vermeulen @ 2003-08-28 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3788 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:08AM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Personally, I believe that some form of IPR protection is morally right, no
> matter what the field of endeavour. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have
> invented a creditable form of IPR protection which would seem fair in the
> computing world.
You have IP in the form of copyright and licensing. If you don't want others
to know your algorithm, license it and don't disclose it. If they happen to
find a similar algorithm doing the same thing due to their own research, they
should be able to use it anyway.
IP protection is to _protect_ the _investements_ you've made so that other
companies/people don't use your _inventions_ without having to go through the
same timeline (idea, research, development, simulation, testing, production).
With normal patents, this IP protection is settled. However, software patents
are much worse; they allow anyone to protect an idea, a general/generic look
and feel of any algorithm. You prohibit others to even think about
implementing something like your invention, even though they will have to go
through the same cycle (irdstp). This is not IP protection, this is creating
a monopoly.
> Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer.
> (Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have no
> idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not) Why shouldn't they
> be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it? Never mind
> the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals.
No, since remote access is a concept. Their implementation can and should be
protected (dunno how it's called with HP), but they shouldn't stop others to
develope a remote access implementation different of their own.
If I would have invented a way to predict register values before an algorithm
has completed, I can implement this in a compiler to produce faster code. To
protect my IP, I should protect my implementation. However, if I patented the
concept of value-prediction, I make sure that no-one can ever develop
something similar (or even better).
This is completely against the spirit of patents. Patents should promote
research and development by giving the inventor a means to protect its
investements.
Even more, if _you_ develop software, do you check all existing patents to be
sure that your software doesn't cross one of them? I'm sure that you don't.
John Gage, the Chief Researcher and Director of the Science Office of Sun
Microsystems, had a nice talk on the ONEday conference in Genval, Belgium on
the 30th of July in which he described his PoV on software patents. One of
they key items in his speach was that most _real_ software inventions
(protocols, internet, ...) were inventions of students or people that have
just graduated, people that don't think about patents. These inventions have
changed the ICT-world (TCP/IP, WWW, ...).
> Protection for IPR itself isn't a bad concept. It's been a key part of the
> commerce-based way of life in the West since before 1449 AD. Stopping the
> current software process patenting nonsense is good and worthy. But the need
> *is* there, as well as the moral right, and this is where campaigners such as
> yourself always fail to convince me.
Patents are for real, physic inventions, where copyrights don't exist (and
licensing only in a lesser extend). Software has both of them, and both of
them are powerfull enough.
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
--
^__^ And Larry saw that it was Perfect.
(oo) Sven Vermeulen
(__) http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2003-08-28 9:29 ` Paul de Vrieze
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Paul de Vrieze @ 2003-08-28 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 23:35, Matt Chorman wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 August 2003 02:13 pm, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > On 27 Aug 2003 22:33:32 +0200
> > Aug 27 21:34:17 * klieber happens to support software patents.
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> It's amazing to me that any open-source developer would agree with software
> patents. Just on a random search of the US patent office, I found that I
> (and probably each and every one of you) are guilty of patent infringment -
> daily. Have you ever used a computer to initiate a remote session - ssh?
> vnc? X? Look up patent 6,611,865. Be thankful HP hasn't started suing
> everyone under the sun.
I personally are not completeley opposed to software pattents either. But I
think currently there are a) too many trivial patents, and b) I believe that
general business methods should not be allowed to be pattented (like those
stupid amazon one-click patents) and c) that for software the protection time
of 20 years is too long when compared to the lifetime of products using those
patents. I think a period of say 5 years is more reasonable.
Last I believe that the patent granting process should be changed to make it
easier for people to object against granting a patent in the first place. The
patent office makes money on granting patents, so there should be a way that
independent parties can go and tell the office that a patent is trivial or
state of the art (easilly replicatable by a third party based on current
public research) or even prior art (allready done by someone else before the
patent application date).
But before the patenting process and patent lifetime is aranged properly I
believe we should not allow software patents, therefor I believe the
anti-patent protest should be supported.
Paul
- --
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/TcuHbKx5DBjWFdsRAvUWAKC2dsjGxXwIAB9pM618Z2awNdJlvwCfY4Fq
QjUZUpMmLbqJrOcXY5c35OY=
=2Ik4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 4:10 ` Luke-Jr
@ 2003-08-28 10:29 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 11:27 ` Sven Vermeulen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2003-08-28 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Luke-Jr, matt, gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1716 bytes --]
On Thursday 28 August 2003 5:10 am, Luke-Jr wrote:
> You do realize what patents are, right?
Yes. My question wasn't about patents (a *system* of IPR protection), but
about whether or not an individual or organisation should have the *moral*
right to protect and earn revenue from their IPR.
> This would be like saying just
> because HP invented remote access first, noone else can invent it
> independantly.
Well, that *is* how other fields of human endeavour have to work. They just
seem to have found a more balanced way to dealing with it.
> Even if someone does invent something, they should only have
> exclusive right to use it for 10 years, and only if they tell others how to
> create it. I don't see how you could believe anything else (at least as far
> as the patents are concerned) is morally acceptable, let alone see the
> other view as immoral. --
I agree that their needs to be time and scope limitations, acceptable fair-use
provisions, and full disclosure (as part of any registration process!) for
IPR protection. Any creditable system needs to be balanced.
But to simply say that there shouldn't be any form of protection for IPR isn't
a position I'm willing to agree with.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 10:29 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2003-08-28 11:27 ` Sven Vermeulen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Sven Vermeulen @ 2003-08-28 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:29:01AM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Well, that *is* how other fields of human endeavour have to work. They just
> seem to have found a more balanced way to dealing with it.
No, other fields work on implementations, not ideas or concepts. You patent a
certain _implementation_ of a combustion engine, not the *idea* or *concept*
of a combustion engine.
The first is what I totally agree on, implementations can be protected. The
latter I totally disagree on, concepts/ideas have no need for protection.
> But to simply say that there shouldn't be any form of protection for IPR isn't
> a position I'm willing to agree with.
For software, copyright and licensing are two strong IP protection measures
that are both firm and without high costs. And you can even choose to close
your software (no open source) if you want to make sure that no-one illegally
steals/uses it.
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
--
^__^ And Larry saw that it was Perfect.
(oo) Sven Vermeulen
(__) http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 8:59 ` Sven Vermeulen
@ 2003-08-28 11:28 ` Stuart Herbert
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2003-08-28 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Sven Vermeulen; +Cc: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6362 bytes --]
On Thursday 28 August 2003 9:59 am, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> You have IP in the form of copyright and licensing.
Licensing is a subset of contract law, involving the lending of rights or
assets from one business party to another. IANAL, but as I understand it,
licenses don't provide legal recognition of IPR.
> If they happen to find a similar algorithm doing the same thing due to
> their own research, they should be able to use it anyway.
And this is the crux of the real problems (imho) with software patents.
Because software is typically made up of hundreds (if not thousands) of
processes at a time, it seems impossible for programmers to avoid
independently inventing the same processes time and time again.
This alone would seem to fall foul of the UK requirement that:
"To be patentable your invention must ... involve an inventive step.
An invention involves an inventive step if, when compared to what
is already known, it would not be obvious to someone with a good
knowledge and experience of the subject."
> IP protection is to _protect_ the _investements_ you've made so that other
> companies/people don't use your _inventions_ without having to go through
> the same timeline (idea, research, development, simulation, testing,
> production).
IP protection is to create a legal recognition of your IP. It creates an
asset, and a "territorial right" (quoting from the UK Patent Office) to legal
protection of that asset.
> With normal patents, this IP protection is settled. However, software
> patents are much worse; they allow anyone to protect an idea, a
> general/generic look and feel of any algorithm. You prohibit others to even
> think about implementing something like your invention, even though they
> will have to go through the same cycle (irdstp). This is not IP protection,
> this is creating a monopoly.
Now we're back to the evils of the *system*. I don't support the current
system, and have already said that. Let's move on.
IP protection *does* allow you to create a monopoly of sorts by its very
nature. That seems unavoidable, unless you wish to do away with IP
protection.
> No, since remote access is a concept. Their implementation can and should
> be protected (dunno how it's called with HP), but they shouldn't stop
> others to develope a remote access implementation different of their own.
I agree that any protected IPR should be specific in nature.
> If I would have invented a way to predict register values before an
> algorithm has completed, I can implement this in a compiler to produce
> faster code. To protect my IP, I should protect my implementation. However,
> if I patented the concept of value-prediction, I make sure that no-one can
> ever develop something similar (or even better).
Similar, yes. Better - no. The vast majority of UK patents (and, I would
wager, this is true for other systems too) are for incremental improvements
to existing inventions.
> This is completely against the spirit of patents. Patents should promote
> research and development by giving the inventor a means to protect its
> investements.
You've confused me. How is this statement in conflict with the idea of you
protecting a concept of value-prediction?
> Even more, if _you_ develop software, do you check all existing patents to
> be sure that your software doesn't cross one of them? I'm sure that you
> don't.
You're right, I don't. But there again, I live in a country where most
programmers believe that software patents aren't part of our legal system.
> John Gage, the Chief Researcher and Director of the Science Office of Sun
> Microsystems, had a nice talk on the ONEday conference in Genval, Belgium
> on the 30th of July in which he described his PoV on software patents. One
> of they key items in his speach was that most _real_ software inventions
> (protocols, internet, ...) were inventions of students or people that have
> just graduated, people that don't think about patents. These inventions
> have changed the ICT-world (TCP/IP, WWW, ...).
I always thought TCP/IP was invented for the US DoD? Vint Cerf does seem to
be talking about the ARPA network in his 1973 paper where TCP is first
mentioned.
I don't know what the situation was back then, or what it is now, but I do
know that, in the 80's and early 90's, if NASA sold a piece of software, they
weren't allowed to license it - you bought the whole thing, (non-exclusive)
rights and all. That's how NQS became the de-facto standard for UNIX batch
processing. NQS was written for NASA, who then sold implementations of
Cosmic NQS to companies such as Cray, Sterling Software (both of whom
released their own commercial versions) and Monsanto (who released the whole
thing under the GPL). When I succeeded Monsanto's John Roman as maintainer
of the GPL'd NQS, I was led to understand that this ceeding of rights wasn't
unique to NASA's charter, but more widely applied to work done by the US
Government. If true, wouldn't that mean that TCP/IP was never going to be
patentable in the first place?
> Patents are for real, physic inventions,
Sorry, but that's not true, at least not here in the UK. The oldest surviving
patent issued in the UK was in 1449, for a process of manufacturing stained
glass windows for Eton College. Today, the UK Patent office very clearly
states:
"Patents are generally intended to cover products or processes that
possess or contain new functional aspects; patents are therefore
concerned with, for example, how things work, what they do, how they
do it, what they are made of or how they are made."
Like copyrights, a patent is a business asset that can be licensed if
required. No asset - no license.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-27 20:33 [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
@ 2003-08-28 13:49 ` Lars Weiler
2003-08-28 16:03 ` Philippe Lafoucrière
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Lars Weiler @ 2003-08-28 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo-dev
* Philippe Lafoucrière <lafou@wanadoo.fr> [03/08/27 22:33 +0200]:
>will the gentoo website participate to the online manifestation ?
Have a look at the site now. Right to the red gentoo-logo
is a small paragraph that informs about this topic.
Regards, Lars
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
2003-08-28 13:49 ` Lars Weiler
@ 2003-08-28 16:03 ` Philippe Lafoucrière
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Lafoucrière @ 2003-08-28 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Lars Weiler; +Cc: Gentoo-dev
thx a lot
kind regards
Phil
> Have a look at the site now. Right to the red gentoo-logo
> is a small paragraph that informs about this topic.
>
> Regards, Lars
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-28 16:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-08-27 20:33 [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
2003-08-28 1:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 4:10 ` Luke-Jr
2003-08-28 10:29 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 11:27 ` Sven Vermeulen
2003-08-28 8:59 ` Sven Vermeulen
2003-08-28 11:28 ` Stuart Herbert
2003-08-28 9:29 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-08-28 13:49 ` Lars Weiler
2003-08-28 16:03 ` Philippe Lafoucrière
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-27 22:48 Joshua Brindle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox