-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Computer Modern appears to be a trademark of the American Mathematical
Society. I don't know what impact a lack of mention of that in vol
E. would have.
- -Brian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9etQr03mlJHng
Martin Schr??der wrote:
> On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
> > > are not. "Computer Modern" might be trademarked (I don't know),
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:10:24PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> I wonder how difficult will be to make a new set of patches for
> timidity... any volunteer?
The timidity patches need replacing because they're crap. If they are
also non-free crap, they _really_ have got to go. In ages past,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> > DFSG says that you have to permit modification. (By patches or
> > directly.) That is violated by a rule like "if you modify this, you
> > must chant the kama sutra" or "if you modify this, you cannot name the
> > output file foo.bar".
>
> It is no
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My theory is that the address harvesters are trying to be smart and are
> deleting the "spam" substring from your address. Some poor bastard at
> suemers.org is getting all your spam :)
If they were being "smart" they would just send to both. I mea
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 08:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
> > *good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
> > The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The arguments that have been presented that say that requiring file
> > renaming is an infringment on the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG are
> > certainly reasonab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
> *good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
> The question is whether they are free software.
Statements like this reall
David Given <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking into it, timidity-patches turns out to have been put together
> from patch files taken from the Midia patch set, distributed with the
> Midia MIDI renderer that ran on SGI workstations. Midia and its patch
Yes, i've been suspecting that, because of
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 06:19:26AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Seriously, I have posted many, many, places with my suespammers
> address. I get little spam at it, but a piece or two a day. OTOH, my
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] address gets nailed with tens of pieces a day.
So, what's the differenc
On Tuesday, Sep 3, 2002, at 01:44 US/Eastern, J.B. Nicholson-Owens
wrote:
This font may not be distributed with commercial applications.
Released
under the terms of the Gnu Public License, www.gnu.org
That notice has many problems, the least of which being said license
does not exist.
Is there any actual evidence that obscuring email addresses in common
forms like "asd at suespammers dot org" actually does any good?
Has anyone actually created two random email addresses, and posted them
to the same web page, one obscured, one not, and seen if there is a
measurable differenc
12 matches
Mail list logo
