FC: Tom Giovanetti: "Agfa's right!" and more replies to DMCA threats

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Copyright (and, more broadly, with apologies to Richard Stallman, 
intellectual property law in general) is a divisive issue in free-market 
circles. The three most common positions are, summarized I hope reasonably 
well: (1) Intellectual property is property and therefore should have 
identical legal protections. If you use my car without permission, even if 
you return it, it's unlawful. Same with piracy -- criminal penalties are 
appropriate. (2) Intellectual property is not property at all -- it is a 
government-created fiction that did not properly emerge through common law 
and is subject to all the usual public choice criticisms. Copyright and 
patent law interfere with my ability to use my tangible property as I see 
fit and should be dispensed with altogether, or nearly so. (3) 
Copyright/patent law is necessary, for economic reasons if nothing else, 
but has gone too far. Let's repeal the DMCA/NET Act/copyright term 
extension, fix that Patent Office, snub Hollings, and call it a day.

Tom seems to fall into camp #1. My own thoughts are here (what camp I am in 
is left as an exercise for the reader):
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/McCullaghintprop.html

-Declan

---

From: tomg () ipi org
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font 
editing  tools
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 12:08:30 -0500

I have to tell you, I think they're right. I think "font-twiddling" is a 
violation of their intellectual property rights. And I think they explained 
it in a clear, dispassionate manner.

Dec, if us free-marketeers become part of the campaign to erode 
intellectual property rights, we'll be undermining one of our core 
principles. The long-term consequences are ominous.

**************************
Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
http://www.ipi.org
tomg () ipi org

---

From: David Wagner <daw () cs berkeley edu>
Subject: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font editing
  tools
To: declan () well com
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: embeddinginfo () agfamonotype com, twm () andrew cmu edu

In an earlier note to Politech, Afga Monotype writes:
>The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") makes it a violation of
>federal law to distribute a product that circumvents a "technological
>measure" that controls access to a copyrighted work.

I urge readers to read the law for themselves and consult competent
legal advice, rather than relying only on the above summary.  The DMCA
is a complex law, and these issues aren't as clearcut as one might like.

I'm definitely, absolutely not qualified to interpret the law.  However,
I can't help noticing that 1201(a)(2) only prohibits devices whose
primary purpose was unauthorized circumvention, or that has only a limited
commercial significant use other than unauthorized circumvention, or that
was marketed for the purpose of unauthorized circumvention.  See below.

Does embed.exe fall into any of these prohibited categories?
Considering the author's claims that the intended purpose of the tool
was for authorized use only, the answer may not be the clearcut "yes"
that Agfa Monotype's summary of the law might lead one to expect.



Section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component,
or part thereof, that -

  (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing
  a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
  protected under this title;

  (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
  than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
  access to a work protected under this title; or

  (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
  that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
  a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
  protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection -

  (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a
  scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
  bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
  the authority of the copyright owner; and

  [...]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html



---

From: Amos Satterlee <asatterlee () inta org>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font editing to
        ols
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 14:03:37 -0400

Declan:

Another case of rousing the sleeping dog. Who knew about embedding bits (for
that matter, who cared that much) until Agfa made a stink. Like the Deutsch
Bahn flap about the Radikal pages.

What is striking is Agfa's refusal to admit that there is a legitimate
purpose for the application. I found it difficult to believe that Agfa
doesn't use a similar utility to change the embedding bits on groups of
fonts at once.

When are these companies going to understand that hiding behind the DMCA and
taking a myopic attitude is will not resolve these issues. In fact, these
actions only engender negative PR and reinforce the perception that the
corporations are out to screw real innovation.

Rather, they need to recognize that there will ALWAYS BE two edges to the
digital sword. In this case, Agfa would have been better served asking Tom
to downplay the existence of Embed and perhaps put up a registration feature
to inhibit downloads.

Amos

---

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 04:18:50 -0400
To: declan () well com, tom7 () cs cmu edu
From: Jason Young <jyoung () lexinformatica org>
Subject: Fwd: FC: Exciting new use of DMCA! Banning font-twiddling
 software!

Hi Tom and Declan,

I'm Canadian and a law *student* - two points against me when it comes to 
interpreting U.S. law - but I think Tom misreads s. 1201(a)(2)(B), by which 
he must mean 1201(2)(B), because the aforementioned §§ does not exist, that 
"embed (the alleged anti-c program) is exempt because it has substantial 
commercial significance". Under Sony this would have been the test (staples 
of commerce), but not under the DMCA, which rather, narrows the rule to 
limit protection for those programs which have "limited commercial value".

In the words of authority Nimmer on Copyright, the DMCA "ventilates" Sony's 
broad force.

Still, I can't help but wonder what Agfa is thinking. They just bought 
themselves millions in bad publicity.

Jason

---
Jason Young
http://www.lexinformatica.org
http://www.privaterra.org
830F AE11 91C5 946E CF80  684C F13C 79C3 46E1 1518

---

From: "Matt Del Vecchio" <matt.del () usa net>
To: <vikki.quick () agfamonotype com>, <enquire.europe () agfamonotype com>,
        <mark.larson () agfamonotype com>, <david.dewitt () agfamonotype com>
Cc: <tom7 () cs cmu edu>, <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Exciting new use of DMCA! Banning font-twiddling software!
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:27:55 -0500

Dear Monotype,

how can you call yourselves Americans when you attempt to bully the
little guy and pervert the law such? This program is clearly a useful
tool for font designers like myself.

do you really think your strong arm tactics are the right thing to do?
why is it big companies think they ought to change the world to fit
their opinion, rather than just accepting things like the rest of us?
what makes you so special?

look, all youre doing is making a *bad name* for yourself. i already
hate your business--wow! your lawyers must be very effecient! is that
what you really want for yourselves??


sincerely,
matt

--
Matt Del Vecchio
http://www.semi-suave.com

---

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 02:53:27 -0500
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
From: Sanford Olson <sanford () msn fullfeed com>
Subject: Re: FC: Exciting new use of DMCA! Banning font-twiddling
  software!
Cc: vikki.quick () agfamonotype com, enquire.europe () agfamonotype com,
        mark.larson () agfamonotype com, david.dewitt () agfamonotype com,
        tom7 () cs cmu edu

Don't forget to sue Microsoft.  Microsoft's DEBUG program, which is 
included with every copy of MS-DOS and every copy of Windows, can easily 
modify the Embedding bits of a font too.

- Sanford

---

From: "George M. Ellenburg" <george () ellenburg org>
Organization: The Ellenburg Family - http://www.ellenburg.org/
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font 
editing  tools
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:00:23 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4]
Cc: tom7 () cs cmu edu, embeddinginfo () agfamonotype com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 08 May 2002 12:25 pm, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Under the DMCA, product developers do not have the right to distribute
> products that circumvent technological measures that prevent consumers from
> gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized copies of works
> protected by the Copyright Act. Instead, Congress specifically prohibited
> the distribution of the tools by which such circumvention could be
> accomplished.

So should Hex Editors be outlawed, too?

I mean, come on... a Hex Editor can be used to open up the .TTF font and
provides a mechanism that "circumvent[s] technological measures" and allows
consumers to gain unauthorized access to works protected by Copyright.

What about the "copy", "cp", "tar", "cpio", and "zip" commands?  Should these
be outlawed, too?

I mean, come on... I could zip up the .TTF files and (omigod!) Email them to
my colleague.

Sheesh.  But, I'm grateful for companies like Agfa.  They, and Adobe, and
everyone else who brings up these stupid little arguments only further add to
mine, and others', portfolios of examples as to how the DMCA is being abused,
and is a bad law to begin with.

Regards,
- --
George M. Ellenburg <george () ellenburg org>
3 Years and counting of being 100% Microsoft-free; and much more productive.
Proud user of ASK <http://www.paganini.net/ask/>, the Active Spam Killer!

---
                -- Mark Twain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE82VmwFItzMEWZZdgRAqwPAJ9U8alJLmMvdQ6AY0up//4Fz8LGUwCfbsvF
DIlzE+021M8fX454YZ9wk6k=
=dJPH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:41:58 -0400
From: "Rev. George" <george () hotelling net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font editing 
tools

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

#embeddinginfo remarked:
> The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") makes it a violation of
> federal law to distribute a product that circumvents a "technological
> measure" that controls access to a copyrighted work. Embedding bits are
> obviously such a technological measure, the program at question clearly
> circumvents the embedding bits, and the fonts containing the embedding bits
> are copyrighted. One court recently held:

I wish that Agfa had continued their quotation from the DMCA.  It might
read like this:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") makes it a violation of
federal law to distribute a product that circumvents a "technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this
title." (Sec. 1201 Paragraph A according to
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html )

It seems to me that the only bit they cut out was the "effective" part,
which doesn't seem like an accidental edit.  The problem with defining
an effective access control is you fall into a dumber-than-me problem.
Rot-13 isn't an effective access control for me, but to someone who is
dumber than me (with respect to Rot-13 crypto) it will be very
effective.  So I guess the question is "Are a few bits in a well
documented file format an effective access control?"

But I guess when it's illegal to point out flaws in people's products
(Right Ed Felton?) then anything can be effective.  Anyone got a Perl
one-liner that twiddles those bits?

George
- --
Rev. George                 | There's something wrong with IP laws when
george () hotelling net        | you can't sing Happy Birthday in public.
http://george.hotelling.net | GPG: 0x8175D485
- ---------------------------/ \-----------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE82WNlgXVRXIF11IURApPdAJwJDZcNACuDXFcgnji4X2SEBfqwRwCfaMjP
giy0W7+To//GXtc5prYt3d0=
=HYmk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

Subject: RE: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font editing tools
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:20:16 -0700
From: "Eric Conkle" <econkle () darkfrontier com>
To: <declan () well com>

This is as ridiculous as saying that distributing files with the
read-only flag set is a form of  a technological measure that controls
access to a copyrighted work and by including the atrrib.exe program in
its Windows line of products Microsoft is in violation of the DMCA.

Perhaps the government should start developing technology courts like
they did with special environmental courts; acknowledging that the
complexities of the cases require a special background not just in the
law, but in technology as well.

Eric Conkle

---

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:44:13 -0500
From: Rick Bradley <fsl-discuss () roundeye net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: tom7 () cs cmu edu, embeddinginfo () agfamonotype com
Subject: Re: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font editing 
tools

[ permission granted to freely distribute, with attribution ]

In response to:  <http://www.politechbot.com/p-03505.html>

* Declan McCullagh (declan () well com) [020508 12:06]:
> From: #embeddinginfo <embeddinginfo () agfamonotype com>
> Subject: Embedding and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:04:11 -0500

[... "no one respects the pains of the endangered artist [megacorp]" PR 
babble deleted ...]

> TrueType fonts have the capability to be embedded in electronic documents.
> Embedding means that all or part of a font is incorporated in an electronic
> document, and if that electronic document is transmitted to a third party
> via the Internet or e-mail, the font software used to create the document
> goes along as well.

Excuse me, but I find it ludicrous to believe that if I create a
TrueType font with (e.g.) Fontographer and embed that font in a document
so that it's available to a person viewing my work that Fontographer is
embedded along with my font.  This is ridiculous to the point of
stupidity.  Since the people writing this should know a thing or two
about fonts I can only presume this is an intentional deception.
Looking at the remainder of their argument I see that this deception is
fundamental to their point.

> Virtually no commercial font developers set their embedding bits at level 4,
> because fully installable embedding means that the recipient of a single
> electronic document automatically and permanently acquires all of the font
> software contained in that document, the same as if he or she had purchased
> it.

"Font software"?  It is clear that a program like Fontographer is not
embedded in documents.  Either #embeddinginfo is using the term software
to refer to the descriptions of a given font required to render that
font (inside a piece of viewing or printing software) -- which are
always necessary to use the font, and hence ALWAYS available whenever a
font is included in a document (or when the font is downloaded
separately outside of an embedded document) -- or they are painting with
the broad brush of misinformation.

TrueType specifications are far less expressive than PostScript and PDF
specification (documents in which languages no one refers to as
"software").  For a font producer to equate a TrueType font with "font
software used to create the document" as above, and to perpetuate that
mis-characterization again can only be viewed as intentionally
misleading.

> For example, if a person creates a document in Microsoft Word using a
> fully embeddable font and sends that document via e-mail to a recipient, the
> recipient, upon opening the document, automatically and permanently installs
> into his or her computer the entire font used to create the document. This
> recipient now has complete use of the software for all future documents, as
> if he or she had purchased it. Further, any electronic document created
> using this font by the recipient can be forwarded to yet another
> third-party, and so on. The destructive nature of a fully embeddable setting
> to a copyrighted font is obvious.

To be gracious, the author is confused regarding the nature of the
technology and the power of licensing.  The TrueType specification is
open and has been implemented by numerous authors, many unknown and
unknowable.  There is no requirement that a given implementation support
any of the specified features, any more than there is a requirement that
a given calculator support the hyperbolic cosine function.  Any software
which implements enough of the TrueType spec to read a font will be able
to read it, and is not bound to implement any given feature.

Given that, no one is bound to implement support for embedding, or to
recognize hints recommending lack thereof.  This means that no one is
bound to prevent fonts with various embedding hints from being used
in any fashion whatsoever.

The TrueType embedding bits do nothing to control the copying, use,
spread, licensing, rendering, printing, etc., of any font which
specifies values for them.  At best these are hints for renderers
which choose to recognize them.

To pretend otherwise is to participate in a farce.

Licensing of fonts is what determines what can be done with them.  If
someone violates the license with their usage of a proprietary font then
they are culpable and may be pursued with all applicable force under
Copyright law.  Since AGFA believes there is an infringement problem
(otherwise why send the lawyers after Mr. Murphy?) it's odd to me
that they can't find anyone to arrest for actual infringement.

For infringement to occur someone must have violated a license
agreement, and as far as I can tell it wasn't Mr. Murphy.

> We have become aware of the distribution of a program that has only one
> function, that is, to alter the embedding bits on a TrueType font to make
> the font fully embeddable. In other words, even though the creator of a
> particular TrueType font may have carefully limited the distribution of the
> font by setting the embedding bits to level 1 or level 2, this software
> alters these bits to a level 4, installable embedding.

Again, misleading, and I believe willfully.  A "creator of a particular
TrueType font" cannot "carefully limit[] the distribution of the font by
setting the embedding bits[...]" because those bits do not limit
distribution.

The embed program does toggle embedding bits, which is by no stretch of
the imagination illegal -- how many pieces of software manipulate these
bits (hint:  every font editing program which supports that part of the
TrueType spec.)?  For authors to use such a tool is not a crime -- on
the contrary, such initiative is to be commended as they increase their
efficiency and accelerate the production of contributions to Science and
the Useful Arts for which the Constitution provides the Limited Times
monopoly of copyright in the first place.

If making this tool available, or making available information about how
to write such a tool, is against the law, then distribution of the
TrueType specification, which provides the same information, must also
be outlawed.  Fortunately, since the embedding bits in a font are not an
access control technology the embed tool won't be outlawed and the
TrueType spec is safe.

> It is difficult for us to understand why the author of a font would
> need software to alter embedding bits in his own font, since the tools
> widely used to create TrueType fonts allow the creator to specify or
> later change the level of desired embedding.

This is akin to saying "It is difficult for us to understand why someone
would use dumbbells in his workout, since the Nautilus Mega2000XP allows
him to exercise any muscle group."

Most font creation tools are ill-suited to the job of tweaking specific
aspects of created fonts, and are even worse at automation.  Efficiency,
flexibility, and "the right tool for the job" are all good reasons for
creating specialized tools.  Your lack of understanding has no bearing
on this matter -- one where the embed author needs no justification for
creating a specialized tool to do what most bloated tools already do as
well.

> Embedding bits are obviously [a DMCA-defined] technological measure,
> the program at question clearly circumvents the embedding bits, and
> the fonts containing the embedding bits are copyrighted.

Wrong on all but the final count:  the fonts containing the embedding
bits are copyrighted by the embed author, Tom Murphy.  On the other
points (your "obviously" betrays you) as I pointed out above the
embedding bits provide no control over the copying of a font.  The
embed program can't "circumvent" something that isn't a control
measure (Have you stopped beating your wife?).

> One court recently held:
[ irrelevant case excerpt snipped ]

> Another recent court recently held:
[ ditto ]

> Further, we feel that an accurate understanding of the issues will
> result in any fair-minded person seeing the merits of Agfa Monotype's
> position.

This would be true, were one provided (which Tom Murphy attempted to do
in spite of your refusal to understand the matters of law and technology
at hand).

The merits of your position are simply:

 - you are the authors of copyrighted fonts, which you have the right to
   protect against infringement under USC 17.

 - Mr. Murphy has not to my knowledge, nor by the public statement of
   AGFA or Mr. Murphy's accounts, infringed these copyrights, and
   harassing him would gain you nothing but bad PR.

 - His tool provides no knowledge or functionality not already available
   to the masses, and its existence and distribution has no bearing upon
   the infringement of your copyrighted works.

It would appear that your lawyers are overcharging you, as are your
public relations staff.

> However, once we have explained and an individual persists in damaging
> the property of both Agfa Monotype and the many individual type
> designers who license their fonts to Agfa Monotype, we are prepared,
> however reluctantly, to take necessary action to protect our
> respective rights.

Then why don't you go find someone who's doing that?

I informed you over a week ago, in an official capacity, that your
organization, due to your ham-handed handling of this matter --
regardless of the merits of your products -- has lost all future business
with my organization and those of many of my associates.  Let me
reiterate that sentiment and ensure you that whenever I hear your
corporation's name mentioned I will direct all within earshot to
accounts of this fiasco.


How many people do you have to infuriate before you hear the cluephone
ringing?

You might want to pick that up...

Rick
--
 http://www.roundeye.net    MUPRN: 381    (91 F)
                       |  the black box spits out
   random email haiku  |  a classifier along with
                       |  the training results.

---

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 09:12:30 +1000
From: Terry Collins <terryc () woa com au>
Organization: WOA Computer Services
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to ban font 
editingtools

Declan

Just a 2c comment.
Agfa sounds just like a blacksmith complaining about the welding machine
{:-).

I've only been in IT for 18 years, but the skills I can sell to earn a
living have changed many times in that period. Agfa needs to learn that
lesson.

---

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:24:07 +0100
From: David Cantrell <david () cantrell org uk>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Matt Deatherage on Agfa, DMCA, and font embedding problems


On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 02:25:55PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> First, you'll notice that Agfa-Monotype consistently refers to a font as
> "font software."

... correctly.  At least in Postscript fonts (I don't know much about
Truetype) it is possible to have programming in a font.  In fact, a PS
font *is* just a program written in Postscript.  There are several examples
of, for instance, fonts which include random elements in their design, so
no two instances of the same letter look exactly alike.

See the Random-Font example at http://www.zi.unizh.ch/publications/ps/ for
one of them, or http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/randomfont.html for another.

--
David Cantrell | Member of the Brute Squad | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

       Willing to accept a lower economic "standard of
       living" in return for higher quality of life

---

From: Pieter Hulshoff <phulshof () xs4all nl>
To: embeddinginfo () agfamonotype com
Subject: Re: [DMCA_Discuss] FC: Agfa replies to Politech on using DMCA to 
ban font editing tools
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:29:54 +0000
Cc: declan () mail well com, dmca_discuss () lists microshaft org,
        politech () politechbot com,
        "jono () networkcommand com" <jono () networkcommand com>

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to your "A response to your thread: "Exciting new use of DMCA!
Banning font-twiddling software!", I would like to make the following
comments:

> These individuals fail to appreciate that fonts are
> valuable intellectual property and that the creator of a font, like the
> creator of any other software, has the right to determine how it will be
> used by the public.

Copyright offers no such rights. Copyright offers rights involving copying and
distribution of a product. It does not offer the copyright owner the right to
control the use of its product outside that scope.

> It is difficult for us to understand why the
> author of a font would need software to alter embedding bits in his own
> font, since the tools widely used to create TrueType fonts allow the
> creator to specify or later change the level of desired embedding.

Because it would save him/her the time of editing each individual font
manually. I have no trouble finding such options to be helpful to the creator
of a set of fonts. Please reread the correspondence regarding this case
you're persuing.

> The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") makes it a violation of
> federal law to distribute a product that circumvents a "technological
> measure" that controls access to a copyrighted work.

It is my firm believe that the DMCA is a malformed law in this regard. It
makes illegal, those tools that can be used for infringement of copyright.
Why is it that such a law is acceptable within the scope of copyright law,
but would seem totally foolish outside it. A screwdriver can be used for
murder and burglary, yet we see no laws to outlaw screwdrivers. CSS can be
used to legally view DVDs on the Linux Operating System, or to make illegal
copies of DVDs. I see no reason to ban the tool, just because it can be used
for illegal means. Fight the illegal means, not the tools that may be used
for the illegal means.

> Embedding bits are
> obviously such a technological measure, the program at question clearly
> circumvents the embedding bits, and the fonts containing the embedding bits
> are copyrighted.

I fear you make a legal error in judgement here. The fonts are indeed
copyrighted, but the embedding bits neither protect the fonts from being
copied, nor from being accessed. They only protect the fonts from being used
in a way that you do not wish to allow. Unfortunately, copyright law
(including the DMCA) does not protect you from people using your fonts in
ways that you would rather not allow. I fear the DMCA does not apply in your
case, but I'm sure the upcoming court case will point this out.

On the other hand: you could consider saving your company a lot of bad PR by
not persuing this court case, and in stead fire lawsuits against those that
actually distribute your product illegally. I think you would find more
support from the public that way.

Regards,

Ir. Pieter Hulshoff
VOSN (Foundation for Open Source, the Netherlands)

---




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------