Discussion

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

1 participants
3272 discussions

USPTO: "Open-source software is not protected under copyright law"
by Wouter Vanden Hove 22 Aug '03

22 Aug '03

As a follow-up on the WIPO-issue: On Larry Lessig's Blog someone posted two recents interview with someone of WIPO, and Lois Boland of the US Patent Office http://lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1436 Quote to remember: “Open-source software is not protected under copyright law but only contract law, which is not the domain of WIPO”. -- Lois Boland, US Patent Office, august 2003 Wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.be

1 0

WIPO Meeting on free/open projects cancelled
by Wouter Vanden Hove 21 Aug '03

21 Aug '03

In july there was the Open Letter to the WIPO that received positive interest and response in Nature. No more today. quote to remember: Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html I don't know wheter this text will be gratis available in the future, so I repost it here: The Quiet War Over Open-Source By Jonathan Krim Thursday, August 21, 2003; Page E01 Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use. But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property. Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products. Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software. So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape. The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology. Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems. In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth. Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so. And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting. The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed. Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said. She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next year. Boland said that if groups such as Love's want an international forum for discussion of open-source, they need to find another organization to host it. The WIPO official, Francis Gurry, did not return numerous calls for comment, but the organization has said it no longer has plans for an open-source gathering. The meeting dust-up is further inflaming an argument that has the fervor of religious debate. Open-source proponents note that its software is here to stay, gaining adoption within the federal government and elsewhere. And they argue that many open-source models rely on property rights through licenses, but apply them in less traditional ways. More broadly, though, they envision a world in which the Internet is the connective tissue that creates a public commons, a place where art and technology should be shared as well as bought and sold. Why, they ask, should that not be debated with vigor? But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems. And that prospect quickly draws the lobbyists, even if the public isn't tuned in. Jonathan Krim's e-mail address is krimj(a)washpost.com.

1 0

No longer talking about free software?
by Ben Finney 21 Aug '03

21 Aug '03

Howdy Bruce, In February 1999, you made a strong statement that "It's time to talk about free software again": <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/msg01641.html> "Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software. It's time for us to fix that. We must make it clear to the world that those freedoms are still important, and that software such as Linux would not be around without them." This sentiment was enthusiastically accepted by the free software community, and is surely even more relevant today. You recognised the benefit of the FSF Europe's "We Talk About Free Software" campaign: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/web/2001-November/001322.html> Yet in recent years I note that you almost exclusively talk about "open source", not "free software". Since you talk about it a lot, and your opinion is (rightly) respected and listened to, this mixed message is of concern to many in the free software community. <http://www.gnu-friends.org/comments/2002/3/11/174244/320?pid=6> What is the reason for departing from your laudable 1999 announcement? I've seen no similar announcement that "It's time to switch again to not talking about freedom". Do you no longer feel that software freedoms are worth discussing -- even emphasising? -- \ "One time I went to a drive-in in a cab. The movie cost me | `\ ninety-five dollars." -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au>

1 0

Aug 27 Demonstrations against EU Software Patent Plans (fwd)
by Xavi Drudis Ferran 20 Aug '03

20 Aug '03

I'm resending news here that most of you possibly already know, but we need as much diffusion as possible, and I believe it's not completely off topic. FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Aug 27 Demonstrations against EU Software Patent Plans Brussels 2003/08/19 For immediate Release The Proposal for a software patent directive, which will be submitted to the European Parliament for plenary debate and subsequent decision on September 1st, giving rise to another wave of protests. Various groups in Belgium and elsewhere are mobilising for a rally in Brussels on August 27th and are calling on web administrators to temporarily block their web sites. Details The Proposal for a software patent directive, which will be submitted to the European Parliament for plenary debate and subsequent decision on September 1st, giving rise to another wave of protests. The Eurolinux Alliance is calling for participation in a rally in Brussels on August 27th, comprising a street performance at 12.00 on Luxemburg Square and conference at 14.00 in the European Parliament, and for accompanying online demonstrations. "The directive proposal as prepared by Arlene McCarthy MEP would impose US-style unlimited patentability of algorithms and business methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping" says Benjamin Henrion, who is heading a local organisational team with the backing of a coalition of organisations representing 2000 software companies and 160,000 individuals, mostly software professionals. In an appeal, the organisers call on European citizens to stand up for the public interest to defend freedom of creation against logic patents, to defend copyright-based software property against patent-based software piracy, to defend software innovation against patent inflation, to defend software users against reduced choices and monopoly pricing. They call on the European Patent Office: Stop littering Europe's information highway! and on the European Parliament: Punish the polluters, don't legalise the pollution! The program in Brussels is approximately as follows, more details will be supplied soon: 12.00-14.00 | Place du Luxembourg | Performance, balloons, patent chain, speeches, ... 14.00-16.00 | EuroParl[13][1] | Conference "In May a [14]two-day software patent conference in and near the European Parliament attracted 200 participants. Leaders of the scientific commuities and software business world condemned the directive proposal in every respect. Yet in June the EP Legal Affairs Commission endorsed this proposal with further amendments that make it even worse", explains Henrion. "More and more people are now seeing this very clearly. We expect even more participatants this time." Yet the vast majority of our supporters will certainly not be on Luxemburg Square on August 27th. "Those who can not come to Brussels should demonstrate online, using their web servers or other internet services", says Hartmut Pilch, president of FFII. "We have [15]proposed a series of ways in which this can be done. There is certainly a way for everyone. Better make access to your webpage a bit more difficult now for one or two days than lose your freedom of publication for the next ten years. Note that if the McCarthy report is approved without drastic amendments, programmers and Internet Service Providers will be regularly sued for patent infringement, if they publish programs on the Internet. If the Parliament votes for the McCarthy proposal now, there will be no more chances for democratic control later." Annotated Links -> [16]AEL Big Demo 27 aug Wiki Hints on how to participate in the demo, needed equipment on site, who provides what, etc -> [17]FFII BXL 2003/08 Wiki Holger's editable auxiliary pages for the 2003/08/27 demo and related events. Includes hints on hotel/hostel rooms, t-shirts, banners etc -> [18]2003/08 Letter to Software Creators and Users The European Parliament will, in its plenary session on September 1st, decide on a directive proposal which ensures that algorithms and business methods like Amazon One Click Shopping become patentable inventions in Europe. This proposal has the backing of about half of the parliament. Please help us make sure that it will be rejected. Here are some things to do. -> [19]2003/08/25-9 BXL: Software Patent Directive Amendments Members of the European Parliament are coming back to work on monday August 25th. It is the last week before the vote on the Software Patent Directive Proposal. We are organising a conference and street rally wednesday the 27th. Some of our friends will moreover be staying in the parliament for several days. Time to work decide on submission of amendments to the software patent directive proposal is running out. FFII has proposed one set of amendments that stick as closely as possible to the original proposal while debugging and somewhat simplifying it. An alternative small set of amendments would "cut the crap" and rewrite the directive from scratch. We present and explain the possible approaches. -> [20]Online Demonstration Against Software Patents We can show our concern by physical presence as well as by more or less gently blocking access to webpages in a concerted manner at certain times. -> [21]European Parliament Rejects Attempt to Rush Vote on Software Patent Directive The European Parliament has postponed the vote on the software patent directive back to the original date of 1st of September, thereby rejecting initially successful efforts of its rapporteur Arlene McCarthy (UK Labour MEP of Manchester) and her supporters to rush to vote on June 30th, a mere twelve days after publication of the highly controversial report and ten days after the unexpected change of schedule. -> [22]JURI votes for Fake Limits on Patentability The European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) voted on tuesday morning about a list of proposed amendments to the planned software patent directive. It was the third and last in a series of committee votes, whose results will be presented to the plenary in early september. The other two commissions (CULT, ITRE) had opted to more or less clearly exclude software patents. The JURI rapporteur Arlene McCarthy MEP (UK socialist) also claimed to be aiming for a "restrictive harmonisation of the status quo" and "exclusion of software as such, algorithms and business methods from patentability". Yet McCarthy presented a voting list to fellow MEPs which, upon closer look, turns ideas like "Amazon One-Click Shopping" into patentable inventions. McCarthy and her followers rejected all amendment proposals that try to define central terms such as "technical" or "invention", while supporting some proposals which reinforce the patentability of software, e.g. by making publication of software a direct patent infringment, by stating that "computer-implemented inventions by their very nature belong to a field of technology", or by inserting new economic rationales ("self-evident" need for Europeans to rely on "patent protection" in view of "the present trend for traditional manufacturing industry to shift their operations to low-cost economies outside the European Union") into the recitals. Most of McCarthy's proposals found a conservative-socialist 2/3 majority (20 of 30 MEPs), whereas most of the proposals from the other committees (CULT = Culture, ITRE = Industry) were rejected. Study reports commissioned by the Parliament and other EU institutions were disregarded or misquoted, as some of their authors point out (see below). A few socialists and conservatives voted together with Greens and Left in favor of real limits on patentability (such as the CULT opinion, based on traditional definitions, that "data processing is not a field of technology" and that technical invention is about "use of controllable forces of nature"), but they were overruled by the two largest blocks. Most MEPs simply followed the voting lists of their "patent experts", such as Arlene McCarthy (UK) for the Socialists (PSE) and shadow rapporteur Dr. Joachim Wuermeling (DE) for the Conservatives (EPP). Both McCarthy and Wuermeling have closely followed the advice of the directive proponents from the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Commission's Industrial Property Unit (CEC-Indprop, represented by former UK Patent Office employee Anthony Howard) and declined all offers of dialog with software professionals and academia ever since they were nominated rapporteurs in May 2002. -> [23]Why Amazon One Click Shopping is Patentable under the Proposed EU Directive According to the European Commission (CEC)'s Directive Proposal COM(2002)92 for "Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions" and the revised version approved by the European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI), algorithms and business methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping are without doubt patentable subject matter. This is because 1. Any "computer-implemented" innovation is in principle considered to be a patentable "invention". 2. The additional requirement of "technical contribution in the inventive step" does not mean what most people think it means. 3. The directive proposal explicitly aims to codify the practise of the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO has already granted thousands of patents on algorithms and business methods similar to Amazon One Click Shopping. 4. CEC and JURI have built in further loopholes so that, even if some provisions are amended by the European Parliament, unlimited patentability remains assured. -> [24]FFII: Software Patents in Europe For the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents on computer-implemented rules of organisation and calculation (programs for computers). Now Europe's patent movement is pressing to consolidate this practise by writing a new law. Europe's programmers and citizens are facing considerable risks. Here you find the basic documentation, starting from a short overview and the latest news. Contact mail: media at ffii org phone: Hartmut Pilch +49-89-18979927 [25]Benjamin Henrion +32-10-454761 More Contacts to be supplied upon request About the Eurolinux Alliance -- www.eurolinux.org The EuroLinux Alliance for a Free Information Infrastructure is an open coalition of commercial companies and non-profit associations united to promote and protect a vigourous European Software Culture based on copyright, open standards, open competition and open source software such as Linux. Corporate members or sponsors of EuroLinux develop or sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses for operating systems such as GNU/Linux, MacOS or MS Windows. About the FFII -- www.ffii.org The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a non-profit association registered in Munich, which is dedicated to the spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of public information goods based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 250 members, 300 companies and 15,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions in the area of exclusivity rights (intellectual property) in the field of software. Permanent URL of this Press Release http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/demo0819/index.en.html _________________________________________________________________ Notes [1] Room number to be announced tomorrow. External visitors, including journalists, need to register in advance. Please contact bxl030827 at ffii org for this purpose. References 14. http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/05/index.en.html 15. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html 16. http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/BigDemo27aug 17. http://offen.ffii.org/bxl/ 18. http://swpat.ffii.org/letters/parl038/index.en.html 19. http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/08/index.en.html 20. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html 21. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0626/index.en.html 22. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/juri0617/index.en.html 23. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/tech/index.en.html 24. http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html 25. http://bh.udev.org/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis(a)tinet.org

1 0

[Fwd: [hipatia] Re: [ffii] Amazon Ordering Method Patented in Europe]
by Eneko Lacunza 19 Aug '03

19 Aug '03

I think this message didn't reach this list. -- Eneko Lacunza <hispalinux.listas(a)enlar.net>

1 0

Re: Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of computer implemented inventions
by Niall Douglas 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

On 14 Jan 2003 at 1:42, xdrudis(a)tinet.org wrote: > I've learnt not to believe everything a MEP says. I don't mean > they're wrong. I mean they often don't realise how wrong the > directive is. On the other hand, it is a bit of human nature: > the MEP wants the less possible amount of work to do (it's > not only laziness, it also gives more chances to "succeed"), > and the constituent wants the MEP do as much work as necessary. > The problem is making them understand what they think that > incresases chances os succeeding is increasing chances of something > which is no success at all. As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this particular context. I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring down the worst possible form of software patent upon us. Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal. That is what we should aim for. > > Yes. However, I've considerably improved by background > > understanding > > of the theory of patents, how they work wrt classical economic > > theory, and why under that same theory US-style patents have the > > opposite effect. > > Don't believe every MEP has the same model, though. Anyway, > I think I was assuming your proposals were more concrete or > you had more familiarity with the directive than you had. > My mistake. I understand you're spending quite a lot of time > in this, and of course reading the directive is your first > prioritu, but after that, I'd be thankful if you could read > > http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html > > and maybe references, since some of the arguments pro-swpat MEPs put > forward are already discussed there. Actually, the final directive which I've read through twice now is the last of my reading on the matter. I have read so many analyses and drafts of amendments of the directive that it's been good to read finally what the hell they've all been talking about. The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation. If I had tried proposing a motion like that at student council at university, it would have been struck down immediately as unratifiable. > > I think everyone here can agree that book-style copyright is > > totally > > inappropriate for software too. In fact, all IP law for anything > > representable inside a computer needs completely rewriting. > > No. I don't think book style copyright is inapropiate to software in > principle, only recent copyright extensions and fundamentalism is > inapropiate/dangerous, but should we go into the details?. You should read the FSF's words on the matter. I don't believe in the crap about all knowledge should automatically be the free property of all mankind - but I do believe it should become so after the creator has been adequately rewarded for their hard work. The new ability of technology to let me share most copyrighted work with millions of others without paying a penny means that existing copyright law is unenforceable. This effect will grow until there will no longer be any realistic financial reward for writing a book or song, filming a movie or making a television series. And most certainly not for writing some computer software except as a pure services role like military contracts. The profit margin on those are rapidly decreasing too as more off the shelf components become available. > > That time is coming. The day someone writes a cheap peer-to-peer > > fully encrypted and completely untrackable file sharing system with > > integrated anti-spy measures, the death bell will truly have > > knelled. I estimate no more than five years away. > > The day they put in prison the authors and a few exemplary users, > seize the communication companies, etc. your wonderful technology > comes to nothing. This is wishful thinking. Freedom must be understood > and demanded by everyone, not achieved by magical means. Come on, > they're already charging against people for having smartcard > programmers or simply high DSL traffic at home. They can only imprison a tiny fraction of those who "break the law". If what you say works, then they would have stopped recreational drug use decades ago. Since its use still increases, clearly you are the one with wishful thinking. You cannot stop innate human behaviour. No one has ever succeeded and I doubt they ever will. > > Shouldn't I comment that on a public list? I'm sure it's public > > information. > > No. I didn't mean you shouldn't. I mean you might not want to, but > since you do, then you evidently want to. It's perfectly ok to talk > abut conversations with other people as long as the other people don't > mind. No problem here. There is always a possibility than a MEP will > feel more confident defending an amendment if he or she has some > "surprise factor" and/or if she or he is seen as the direct drafter. I got a strong sense that she was looking for guidance as what to do. > > Now I finally have the proposed directive, I can finally be > > specific > > wrt revisions. I'll give it a first reading tonight before bed. > > Fine. The first highly important one is the requirement for a working example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other amendments. The second highly important one is the amendment (also suggested lower down) which leaves open for radical changes if evidence of abuse is presented after three years. Immediately after ratification the FSF Europe should open a registrar on the web where the public can enter abuses of the software patent system. Or even better, another directive amendment could mandate the EU to do this for us. The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo". I would also have the directive mandate the setting up of an independent board of software experts to validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO itself clearly doesn't bother. This would save substantial litigation costs to EU SME's, thus saving the EU economy hundreds of millions of euro (and only costing very little for the independent board in comparison). Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable, the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in replacing the EPO. Cheers, Niall

4 7

Software Patents and reduction/interchangeability of presentation
by edA-qa mort-ora-y 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

One thing I've not really seen disccused much, in the context of software patents, is the reduction of physical processes to mathematical representations. I have this troubling feeling that this forces us to allow software patents, or not have any patents whatsoever. Consider that all, save a few, physical processes and biological processes can be reduced to a series of math forms which express the process. Indeed, in the quantam world only the math forms exist, as the empirical status is not quite there. To extend this, most of us would probably argue that software is an extension of such math forms* (where logic is included as such a math). So the question I've never actually seen addressed is, "What is a software patent really?". At what point does something stop being a mathematical representation of a physical process and become a strictly "soft" program? If biological or quantam computing becomes a reality (ie, a more functional reality), is the line between software and physical/biological process any longer clear enough to make a distinction? *Those parts which are not math forms are surely physical processes, which then in turn could be reduced to alternate math forms. -- edA-qa mort-ora-y Idea Architect http://disemia.com/

3 2

Re: (L)GPL remarks and FreeGIS licensing
by xdrudis＠tinet.org 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

> > > However, we /can/ learn to behave differently and slowly, I > think we > > > are. But you can't claim it's natural to share - it isn't outside > > > your family unit. > > > > IMHO sharing food has nothing to do with sharing knowledge. > > They are closer than you think. > ? > > Only one person can eat one thing, but you don't lose knowledge by > > sharing it. This does not mean you want you necessarily want to > share> all the knowledge you have, but any comparison with material > goods is > > misleading. > > You don't lose the knowledge itself, but you /do/ lose the > advantage > gained by you knowing it and no one else. That's what patents in > general are about, company secrets, government intelligence > services > and indeed all schools in the western educational paradigm (see > "Deschooling society" by Ivan Illich). > For patents to be worth anything, the knowledge they disclose should not be deductible (is that English?) from available knowledge. That means they should disclose new empirical knowledge, or in other words, new teachings on controllable uses of forces of nature. Otherwise, the incentive to disclose something you know and nobody else knows is fake, for everybody else can deduce it when needed. > If you look at the first actions the British empire took after > conquering India, they destroyed the schools, factories and > anything > which could compete with English industry. In two generations, > India > had been set back at least a hundred years. This kept them under > the > imperial yoke until the British sent a really stupid governor over > there and prevented the India tea company from doing what it did, > and > it was only this idiocy that caused the rise of nationalism. > > If you take this still further, there is an alarming tendency in > British and American companies to try and prevent their employees > learning new tricks in case they might up and leave for a better > job. > I have seen it so many times it hurts, because really they are > damaging the common pool of national employees. Then they have the > gall to complain about skills shortages and want to import third > world labour who can't complain, switch job or do anything but work > for peanuts for fear of losing their work visa. This of course > means > all the locals become unemployed and suck the country dry by being > unproductive! > > Welcome to the modern working world! > I get quite lost in this, but I don't think I'm interested.

4 5

europarl-ie@ffii.org
by Niall Douglas 17 Aug '03

17 Aug '03

Does europarl-ie(a)ffii.org definitely exist? I can't find reference to it anywhere. If not, should I reference the UK one? Cheers, Niall

2 1

Re: [C++-sig] Re: Twas a bug in MSVC7.1
by Niall Douglas 17 Aug '03

17 Aug '03

On 16 Aug 2003 at 15:31, Nicodemus wrote: > >Nicodemus: In light of this could you fix pyste so that it never > >generates an unnamed namespace? > > Ouch, sorry for have missed that! Niall, there's an option in pyste > named --pyste-ns=<my namespace>, where you can specify the namespace > where the declarations are written. You could try --pyste-ns=pyste or > something, that should solve your problem. I did try that but it was unsuitable for my needs. Really, the two line alteration I made to pyste to not generate an unnamed namespace seems much easier. Cheers, Niall

2 1

Jump to page:

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

Discussion