main

main@lists.alug.org.uk

10372 discussions

LibDems and software patents
by Alex Macfie 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

> > http://www.linux.org.uk/open.l.html> > /Kirsten> > Me too - thanks for the link - kinda summarises well what I've found out > so far, however on the wider scale of things I personally would prefer > voting Libdems who weren't mentioned there but I understand they are > also more receptive to our 'cause'. > > LibDem MEPs voted for software patents (ignoring party policy). For this they have come in for considerable criticism within the party. Full UK MEP voting data: http://www.ffii.org.uk/votes/swpat/country/UK.html Alex

2 1

Re: [ALUG] Norwich Internet Cafe meetings?
by Brett Parker 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 06:04:23PM +0100, Chris Walker wrote: > On Fri 30 Apr, Lewis Allen wrote: > > > > Thank you to everyone who took the time to comment on our offer of the > > Internet Cafe in Norwich Market as an additional venue for ALUG evening > > meetings. It would appear from the replies, so far, that a pub is still > > the much prefered venue. No matter, I am quite fond of beer too and often > > to be found in the Fat Cat sampling the Adnams. > > Adnams? You need to get out more ;-) The Fat Cat is about as out as you can get for good beer selection, obviously they're a die hard adnams fan, or not very adventurous ;) I don't think I've ever had the same drink on different sessions in the Fat Cat, wander in, pick something random from the vast selection, drink, if it's good stick to it for that session, if not, switch again and keep going till one that is good (doesn't usually take long ;) *grin* Ta, -- Brett Parker

2 4

Norwich Internet Cafe meetings?
by MJ Ray 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

After http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2004-May/018849.html, Craig seemed in favour of meeting at the internet cafe, but hadn't checked the place. No-one else has any opinion? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/

6 9

Reminder: Norwich City Gate meeting this Thursday night.
by Jonathan McDowell 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

As per usual, this Thursday (10th June) we'll be congregating in the City Gate from around 8pm. Full details can be found at: http://www.alug.org.uk/meetings/2004/all-NorThu.html J. -- jid: noodles(a)jabber.earth.li Eat a prune. Start a movement.

1 0

Weekly IRC reminder
by Neill Newman 07 Jun '04

07 Jun '04

This is the automated ALUG IRC meeting reminder sent to remind you that there is an IRC meeting tonight (Monday) at 8.00pm. The meeting takes place on the irc server irc.alug.org.uk in the #alug channel. Most IRC clients should allow you to get there with the commands "/server irc.alug.org.uk" and "/join #alug". Popular IRC clients include tkirc, bitchx, xchat and EPIC on Unix, and Mirc under windows. Here are some links to help you get started with irc. Unix http://www.xchat.org/ http://freshmeat.net/ http://www.epicsol.org/ Windows http://www.mirc.com (loads of help with irc for newbies!)

1 0

Gentoo is treating me better now
by Charles Garcia-Tobin 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

Hiyer everybody Gentoo is beginning to look great on my cube, I managed to download all the required sources, I have X with nvidia drivers working, nforce drivers working too. I do have a slight problem with disks though. When I boot the machine dma is turned off, and attempts to turn it back on are dissallowed thus: hdparm -d 1 /dev/hda /dev/hda: setting using_dma to 1 (on) HDIO_SET_DMA failed: Operation not permitted using_dma = 0 (off) Any ideas? is my IDE driver not quite right? Incidentally anybody know what I have to emerger to get lspci? Cheers for the help Charles

3 3

Fwd: Re: Software patents
by Joe Button 03 Jun '04

03 Jun '04

Hi I thought I'd forward a copy of the email I just sent the Eastern MEPs to the list - I was in both a hurry and a blind rage when I wrote it so it's probably not me at my most coherent. Please let me know if there's anything obviously wrong with it. While I'm here, are people aware of this: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/rms-cam020325/index.en.html Whatever you think of rms (personally I think he's a god and will defend his honour with my life) this is a great article about patents. Joe x ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: Software patents Date: Wednesday 02 Jun 2004 14:18 From: Joe Button <joe(a)joebutton.co.uk> To: rhowitt(a)europarl.eu.int Hello again. I'd just like to follow up my email with the information that Network Associates (a large american company) has just been granted a patent on various spam (junk email) filtering techniques in the US. By way of exploring the wisdom of software patents I would like to point out some of the implications of this: * One of the techniques the patent covers is 'Bayesian filtering'. The patent was applied for in December 2002. A very cursory search enabled me to find public discussion of Bayesian spam filtering from February 2002, which referenced material on the topic from dating 1999. * Another technique covered by the patent is apparently 'MD5 paragraph hashing', which simply means the creation of a shorter 'digital ID' code for a paragraph of text. I'm not a spam filtering expert, but as a reasonably capable programmer it seems to me that that is a blindingly obvious thing to do if you're trying to identify spam. * If I write a program that uses either the first established and public technique or the second extremely obvious one, I can be sued. In fact if I'd written one before the patent was granted or applied for I could still be sued. My options would be to get out of the spam-filtering business, to pay Network Associates for the right to use 'their' technology, or to launch a separate case to try to get the patent invalidated, which would be too costly and difficult for virtually any small business. * As an email user, I will be denied the use of free spam filtering software such as the popular 'spamassassin' as the distributors will not be able to license the technology. * Due to the decrease in competition that will be caused by this patent, spam filtering will be generally less efficient than it could be. The world will be a better place for spammers and Network Associates, and a worse place for the rest of us. According to the European Commission spam cost European businesses around two-and-a-quarter-billion euros in 2003 * It's also worth noting that many other spam filtering techniques are patented, some of them under patents that are so broad that they are simply widely ignored on the assumption they won't stand up to legal challenges. Contrary the UK rep's statement of support for de-revised text, permitting software patents will _not_ lead to a simplified legal situation, they will simply create a minefield for software developers and businesses. I hope this helps to clarify some of the implications of the impending legislative changes. Regards, Joe Button

2 2

Re: [ALUG] Fwd: Re: Software patents
by Joe Button 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

On Wednesday 02 Jun 2004 17:22, IanBell wrote: > On Wednesday 02 Jun 2004 2:29 pm, Joe Button wrote: > > Hi > > > > I thought I'd forward a copy of the email I just sent the Eastern MEPs to > > the list - I was in both a hurry and a blind rage when I wrote it so it's > > probably not me at my most coherent. Please let me know if there's > > anything obviously wrong with it. > > Seems coherent enough to me but it has one flaw. What you are complaining > about, it seems to me, is the granting of an invalid patent because of > provable prior art. This situation has always been a possibility with > patents and is in no way unique to software. I did refer to prior art, but I thought I managed to winge about various other things as well, eg. the patenting of the blindingly obvious and the lack of remedy when patents are of dubious validity. Maybe I could have talked about the ways that software is a special case, but you there's only so much you can cram into an MEP's skull in one go. Really what I was trying to convey was that permitting patents on software created a restrictive and uncertain environment for businesses, in the hope of undermining the pro-unamended text lobby's position that it will increase clarity. Thanks for describing me as 'coherent' - I think that's probably the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me. Joe x

1 0

Gentoo is running! but need to setup X
by Charles Garcia-Tobin 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

Hi there Gentoo is up and running, I have networking and everything. Once I'd mananged to download all the packages I needed it all wen't quite smoothly. I've done emerge --usepkg kde and similarly for gnome ( I can't decide!) but it did not setup X. It built it but there is no XF86Config. So is there a setup script like SaX2 on Suse that I can get things going? Another question is what I do to download MSFonts? Help appretiated Charles

9 13

Re:
by John Seago 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

On Tuesday 01 June 2004 Steve Purkiss <steve(a)open4.org> wrote: > > I have had a real problem with understanding the voting on software > > patents and things, just completely unable to comprehend anything to > > do with it, until I read this open letter which I personally found > > very helpful, at least I know how to vote usefully now! > > > > http://www.linux.org.uk/open.l.html > > > > /Kirsten > > Me too - thanks for the link - kinda summarises well what I've found out > so far, however on the wider scale of things I personally would prefer > voting Libdems who weren't mentioned there but I understand they are > also more receptive to our 'cause'. > > Now I'm even more confused... Perhaps Mark will be able to let you have the voting results of the Lib-Dems on this matter in the European Parliament, I seem to remember something being mentioned about their voting record on this matter at Sunday's meeting. In the meantime perhaps you, (and every body else could send your candidates this: ___________________ I would be grateful if you could also reply to the following questions. Do you believe that current copyright enforcement measures are sufficient? Would you vote to allow technological measures that prevent duplication of copyright material for reporting, research and private study? Would you vote for future harmonsiations of European copyright laws to take a high level of protection as their basis? Do you believe that protection of copyright is more important than protection of competition? These questions concern the forthcoming second reading of the directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Will you vote for freedom of publication (against patent program claims)? Will you vote for exclusion of data processing from a 'field of technology', as voted in Article 3a on 24 September? Will you vote for a definition of 'technical' by reference to forces of nature? Will you vote for rejection of the directive if it does not include all of the above freedoms, exclusion and definition? ______________________________________ -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

4 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

main