537 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
537 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
|
|
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 06:13:14 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #798
|
|
|
|
Linux-Misc Digest #798, Volume #2 Thu, 22 Sep 94 06:13:14 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Re: SIGFPE with atof() (Bob Kupiec)
|
|
** autoconf.h? ** (Michael_Nelson)
|
|
Re: Linux & Netware. (Huw Leonard)
|
|
Re: Linux and DOS (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Re: NCR PCI SCSI controllers (Stefan Esser)
|
|
Re: OpenStep on GNU or Linux? (Jay Fuchs)
|
|
Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Tom Wilson)
|
|
Re: Searching infos on ReadyLink ENET16/U Rev. C Card (Donald Becker)
|
|
Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Tom Wilson)
|
|
DOSEMU formating Tapes??? (Jason Sokolosky)
|
|
Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS (Axel Philipp)
|
|
TCP/IP for Linux (Rambabu Koganti)
|
|
can't get DOSEMU to work. (Ian Upright)
|
|
2 IDE with SCSI? (Ming Y Huang)
|
|
Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help
|
|
From: kupiec@tigger.jvnc.net (Bob Kupiec)
|
|
Subject: Re: SIGFPE with atof()
|
|
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 03:13:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
In <35kj62$7no@bosnia.pop.psu.edu>, barr@pop.psu.edu writes:
|
|
>I'm running Slackware 2.0, and i'm trying to compile a program
|
|
>called xweather. (You can get the program from ftp.pop.psu.edu,
|
|
>files /pub/src/xweather.tar.Z and /pub/src/xweather.patch1)
|
|
>
|
|
>The code runs fine on a SPARC, under both 4.1.3 and under Solaris.
|
|
>Friends of mine have it working on other platforms as well.
|
|
>If I compile it under Linux (running either 1.0.9 or 1.1.51), I
|
|
>get a SIGFPE at an atof(). The string atof() is reading is a
|
|
>valid number. I'm using gcc 2.5.8, on a 386 with a 387.
|
|
>
|
|
>The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to depend on which number
|
|
>it's trying to convert to a float, it will bomb after a certain
|
|
>number of atof()'s are called.
|
|
|
|
I'm having the same problem with atof()! I've been going nuts tring
|
|
to find the cause! Is it a library bug, or what?
|
|
|
|
Linux 1.0.8, libc.so.4.5.24, gcc 2.5.8, 486DX40.
|
|
|
|
Here's the snippet of code that's causing it. (This works on SunOS 4.1.3)
|
|
|
|
double getElement(gstr,gstart,gstop)
|
|
int gstart, gstop;
|
|
char gstr[80];
|
|
{
|
|
int k, glength;
|
|
char gestr[80];
|
|
|
|
glength = gstop - gstart + 1;
|
|
|
|
for (k = 0; k <= glength; k++)
|
|
gestr[k] = gstr[gstart+k-1];
|
|
|
|
gestr[glength] = '\0';
|
|
|
|
return(atof(gestr));
|
|
}
|
|
--
|
|
Bob Kupiec (N3MML) Phone: 1-609-897-7319 JvNCnet (GES, Inc.)
|
|
Network Operations -or- : 1-800-35-TIGER 3 Independence Way
|
|
Email: kupiec@jvnc.net Fax : 1-609-897-7310 Princeton, NJ 08540
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: nelson@seahunt.imat.com (Michael_Nelson)
|
|
Subject: ** autoconf.h? **
|
|
Date: 21 Sep 1994 13:40:19 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: nelson@seahunt.imat.com
|
|
|
|
Recently, when attempting to build some applications (one was yamm), I've
|
|
encountered a problem where the application will #include
|
|
|
|
"/usr/src/linux/include/config.h"
|
|
|
|
config.h isn't a problem, because it's there, and it gets #included without
|
|
problem. But config.h has a line in it that #includes "<linux/autoconf.h>",
|
|
and there is no autoconf.h anywhere on my system.
|
|
|
|
So far I've been able to get around the problem by commenting the #include
|
|
of that file out of config.h, and the applications seem to build without
|
|
problem... but it makes me uncomfortable when I have to hack system files
|
|
like this...
|
|
|
|
Is this #include of autoconf.h an error in config.h, or should I really have
|
|
an autoconf.h?
|
|
|
|
BTW, I am currently running 1.51, which started as a complete 1.45 with the
|
|
subsequent patches applied in sequence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Michael Nelson nelson@seahunt.imat.com
|
|
San Francisco, CA FAX: 1-415-621-2608
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
|
|
From: huw@isgtec.com (Huw Leonard)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux & Netware.
|
|
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:34:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <CwHoz8.J1J@nywork1.undp.org> jdsouza@nywork2.undp.org (Joao de Souza) writes:
|
|
>I (jdsouza@undp.org) wrote:
|
|
>: Hi all.
|
|
|
|
>: I am running on a Novell Netware / IBM Token Ring network,
|
|
>: and I was hoping (sp?) to start running Linux on at least one of
|
|
>: our machines as a test. So the question is: Does Linux support
|
|
>: Netware and Token Rings?
|
|
|
|
>So far, I got the following answers:
|
|
|
|
>Netware - 2 yes, 2 no, 1 DOSEMU
|
|
>Token Ring - 1 no, 1 no idea, 1 don't think so, 2 in beta stage
|
|
|
|
I would imagine it depends on what you mean by "support." If you mean, can I
|
|
talk to the Linux machine with Netware, the answer is: if you have TCP/IP
|
|
bound to one of the NICs on your server, yes! I've run IBM's TCP/IP over Token
|
|
Ring with OS/2, but never with Netware.
|
|
|
|
The Netware support for Unix resources (esp. printers) is pretty good, by many
|
|
accounts. I don't see any reason why Netware should have any problem with
|
|
Linux, if both are configured properly.
|
|
|
|
============================================================
|
|
Huw Leonard - Speaking only for himself
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux and DOS
|
|
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 01:56:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Rod Maher (R.P.Maher@ukc.ac.uk) wrote:
|
|
|
|
[ flamebait ]
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
"Linux! Guerrilla UNIX Development Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus."
|
|
============================================================
|
|
Mark A. Horton ka4ybr mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
|
|
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 mah@ka4ybr.com
|
|
+1.404.371.0291 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: se@fileserv1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
|
|
Subject: Re: NCR PCI SCSI controllers
|
|
Date: 22 Sep 1994 00:21:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <35nucl$nji@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>, drew@frisbee.cs.Colorado.EDU (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
|
|
|> >Will the NCR boards be as fast as the Buslogic ones as soon as your
|
|
|> >drivers get more mature?
|
|
|>
|
|
|> Throughput should be somewhat higher, although CPU usage should be
|
|
|> slightly worse with the NCR boards (More complicated structures
|
|
|> are generated, taking more host CPU cycles).
|
|
|
|
Well, I really am not trying an BSD vs. Linux argument, just
|
|
want to give you some data points on NCR performance.
|
|
(Anybody got BONNIE results for other controllers on a similar
|
|
hardware platform (ie. modern 1GB drive and 486/66). ???)
|
|
|
|
The following are BONNIE results from our NCR 53c810 driver
|
|
run on a 486DX2/66 under FreeBSD-1.1. The newer kernels
|
|
improve performance, but we never did another complete set
|
|
of tests, and for completeness I'll cite this (3 month old)
|
|
data (we get >3MB/s under 1.1.5):
|
|
|
|
FreeBSD-1.1 -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
|
|
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
|
|
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
|
|
async.1 10 640 66.2 548 4.2 281 3.7 1235 96.7 2086 22.0 81.4 7.3
|
|
fast.1 10 650 59.1 548 4.0 317 4.9 1274 99.0 2234 26.2 82.7 7.8
|
|
|
|
fast.2 10 900 99.4 912 7.5 519 7.8 1273 99.2 2318 24.0 82.3 7.9
|
|
fast.4 10 895 99.3 1359 12.9 514 9.4 1259 99.2 2235 22.0 83.6 8.2
|
|
fast.8 10 889 98.3 1747 16.6 526 9.8 1276 99.2 2318 25.4 82.7 7.4
|
|
^^^^^^^^^(1)
|
|
fast.16 10 902 99.3 1289 12.0 526 8.9 1281 99.4 2054 21.9 83.0 7.9
|
|
|
|
fast.1 100 591 61.9 583 4.2 342 4.7 1259 97.8 2900 36.3 47.9 4.9
|
|
^^^^^^^^^(2)
|
|
fast.16 100 955 99.3 1402 12.5 583 10.4 1274 98.1 2895 37.2 48.6 4.8
|
|
|
|
## ASYNC SCSI and FAST SYNC without, with 2, 4, 8 and 16 Tags on 10MB file. ##
|
|
## FAST SYNC without and with 16 Tags on 100MB file. ##
|
|
|
|
(BTW: The drive used was a Seagate ST31200 that was 70% filled, an empty
|
|
drive would give better results due to less fragmentation, this is the
|
|
reason for the 100MB results being better, too).
|
|
|
|
I've marked the most interesting values: Reading 8KB blocks (what that
|
|
file system release generally does) is 1.7MB/s and takes 17% of the CPU.
|
|
Writing is up to 3.0MB/s at 40% of the CPU, since finding free blocks
|
|
takes more cycles than just reading the indirect blocks ...
|
|
|
|
Using TAGS helps a lot with this drive, which doesn't seem to do any
|
|
read ahead on its own ... More then 8 TAGS reduce throughput, so 4 to 8
|
|
seems to be most reasonable.
|
|
|
|
These values compare favourably against those obtained on large RISC
|
|
file servers.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Stefan Esser Internet: <se@ZPR.Uni-Koeln.DE>
|
|
Zentrum fuer Paralleles Rechnen Tel: +49 221 4706010
|
|
Universitaet zu Koeln FAX: +49 221 4705160
|
|
Weyertal 80
|
|
50931 Koeln
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jjfox@anshar.shadow.net (Jay Fuchs)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
|
|
Subject: Re: OpenStep on GNU or Linux?
|
|
Date: 21 Sep 1994 20:58:08 -0400
|
|
|
|
Don Hurter (dhurter@world.std.com) wrote:
|
|
: I realize that NeXT cannot afford to nurture an unruly lot like the
|
|
: Linux crowd, but support is not what they really need (they provide their
|
|
: own.) However, there could be a few, low-cost bones that NeXT could throw
|
|
: in their direction that could pay off big in the future. If OpenStep can
|
|
: somehow be wrestled to run on Windows 2000 (truth _can_ be stranger than
|
|
: fiction), what would be needed to make LinuxStep a reality?
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, there is a GNU/Linux version of OpenStep in the works,
|
|
complete with Display Ghostscript. Work is also being done to convert
|
|
Linux to run ontop of Mach 3.0. Other projects include multithreading
|
|
and multiplatform support (Intel, MIPS, PPC, Alpha). Imagine that -
|
|
a FREE Mach 3.0-based, OpenStep-compliant, Multiplatform OS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ctwilson@mercury.interpath.net (Tom Wilson)
|
|
Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help.
|
|
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:02:01 -0400
|
|
|
|
In article <35jfk9$7ka@fstgds15.tu-graz.ac.at>,
|
|
Trink Andreas <trink@myhost.subdomain.domain> wrote:
|
|
>Jeff Kesselman (jeffpk@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|
>: In article <35bdn0$3kj@fstgds15.tu-graz.ac.at> trink@myhost.subdomain.domain (Trink Andreas) writes:
|
|
|
|
[chomp!]
|
|
>
|
|
>I had the same Version, but try that:
|
|
>
|
|
>OS/2+TCP/IP+NOVELL (because we have a Novellserver, and TCPIP you need for
|
|
>internet-services) is NOT (!!!!!) very stable! Under LINUX I have no
|
|
|
|
My experience also, but I'm told the new edition of TCP/IP is much improved
|
|
in general robustness.
|
|
|
|
[chomp!]
|
|
>
|
|
>TCPIP from a DOS-box is not possible. I tried to load some driver within a
|
|
>DOS-box (additionly to the TCPIP-driver of OS/2, I know, this ins't allowed
|
|
>) and everytime OS/2 crashed. Under Linux, you have no problems (and no
|
|
>craches)
|
|
|
|
TCP/IP under DOS *IS* possible, and done where I work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[chomp!]
|
|
--
|
|
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|
|
| Tom Wilson | "I can't complain, but sometimes |
|
|
| ctwilson@rock.concert.net | I still do." |
|
|
| | -Joe Walsh |
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov (Donald Becker)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.development,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,convoy.hardware,local.pinboard,paderborn.pinboard,zer.z-netz.fundgrube.suche.elektronik
|
|
Subject: Re: Searching infos on ReadyLink ENET16/U Rev. C Card
|
|
Date: 21 Sep 1994 16:16:41 -0400
|
|
|
|
In article <5WeiNGNTpsB@higgins.delbox.zer.de>, <HIGGINS@DELBOX.ZER.DE> wrote:
|
|
>Frank Westheider Linux Support Group Paderborn
|
|
>I'm looking for infos on the ReadLINK ENET16/U Rev. C Ethernet-Card.
|
|
>This card can be jumpered for WD80x3 and NEx000 mode and has a lot of
|
|
>jumpers on board :
|
|
...
|
|
>Whatever setting i choose (WD oder NE), whatever IRQ/IO i choose, the card
|
|
>is recognized but
|
|
>
|
|
> - in NE-Mode the card hangs together with HD-Access CRASH
|
|
|
|
This is likely a I/O address conflict. What kind of disk controller are you
|
|
using? What address are the cards jumpered to? Remember that the NE2000
|
|
takes 32 I/O locations.
|
|
|
|
> - in WD-Mode, all works fine, but the cards (2 of this kind) don't
|
|
> recognize one another on the NET
|
|
|
|
Are there any Tx or Rx errors reported in /proc/net/dev? What about error
|
|
messages logged in /usr/adm/messages?
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Donald Becker becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov
|
|
USRA-CESDIS, Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences.
|
|
Code 930.5, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. 20771
|
|
301-286-0882 http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/becker/whoiam.html
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ctwilson@mercury.interpath.net (Tom Wilson)
|
|
Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help.
|
|
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:05:44 -0400
|
|
|
|
In article <35lca9$o0u@mercury.interpath.net>,
|
|
Tom Wilson <ctwilson@mercury.interpath.net> wrote:
|
|
:In article <35jfk9$7ka@fstgds15.tu-graz.ac.at>,
|
|
:Trink Andreas <trink@myhost.subdomain.domain> wrote:
|
|
:>Jeff Kesselman (jeffpk@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|
:>: In article <35bdn0$3kj@fstgds15.tu-graz.ac.at> trink@myhost.subdomain.domain (Trink Andreas) writes:
|
|
:
|
|
:[chomp!]
|
|
:>TCPIP from a DOS-box is not possible. I tried to load some driver within a
|
|
:>DOS-box (additionly to the TCPIP-driver of OS/2, I know, this ins't allowed
|
|
:>) and everytime OS/2 crashed. Under Linux, you have no problems (and no
|
|
:>craches)
|
|
:
|
|
:TCP/IP under DOS *IS* possible, and done where I work.
|
|
|
|
OOOPS!! I see now! from a DOS _BOX_, not from just DOS. Yes, yes, you're
|
|
right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|
|
| Tom Wilson | "I can't complain, but sometimes |
|
|
| ctwilson@rock.concert.net | I still do." |
|
|
| | -Joe Walsh |
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: sokolosk@socket.cuug.ab.ca (Jason Sokolosky)
|
|
Subject: DOSEMU formating Tapes???
|
|
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 06:08:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
I hate formating tapes, because I have to leave linux for 2 hours/tape.
|
|
Is DOSEMU powerful enough to run the tape formating utility???
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Jason Sokolosky
|
|
sokolosk@enel.ucalgary.ca
|
|
sokolosk@socket.cuug.ab.ca
|
|
|
|
-Long Live the INTERNET!!!!
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: philipp@uni-paderborn.de (Axel Philipp)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.admin,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
|
|
Subject: Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS
|
|
Date: 22 Sep 1994 06:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
David - Morris (dwm@shell.portal.com) wrote:
|
|
: Re. why not 127.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1 -- the destination address must
|
|
: be a 'host' address and the host address can't be zero (0).
|
|
|
|
No, the destination address must not always be a 'host'. If you make a 'nestat -rn'
|
|
for example, you will not find as many 'host' routes as 'network' routes.
|
|
'host' routes have the 'H' flag set wheras 'network' routes have the 'G' flag set.
|
|
Therefore there could conceptually be a network with number 127.0.0.0. But this
|
|
number is per definitionem reserved for local connections on your computer.
|
|
I.e the kernel can use the same addressing scheme for local connections (remember
|
|
the 'localhost' entry in /etc/hosts), as it would use for external connections.
|
|
|
|
Axel Philipp
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
===================================================================
|
|
Axel Philipp Universitaet-GH Paderborn
|
|
Email : axel@ktpsp3.uni-paderborn.de Rechnerbetreuung KTP P15.13
|
|
Phone : +49 5251 60 3814 Pohlweg
|
|
33098 Paderborn, Germany
|
|
===================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: rkoganti@rodan.syr.edu (Rambabu Koganti)
|
|
Subject: TCP/IP for Linux
|
|
Date: 22 Sep 1994 06:59:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
I would like to set up Linux TCP/IP and become a internet provider.
|
|
Where I am moving to has little if any conntact with the net. I do know
|
|
this will cost a lot of money. Is the a FAQ file on how to do this, and
|
|
how to get a connetion into the net. I would also like a list of people
|
|
who have done this.
|
|
|
|
Please e-mail your replys
|
|
|
|
Thanks
|
|
Koganti
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Upright)
|
|
Subject: can't get DOSEMU to work.
|
|
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 00:36:17 -0800
|
|
|
|
I'm even a newbie to unix, but when I start dosemu, it loads the config
|
|
file fine, and then gives a 'segmentation fault error'. If I turn
|
|
keyboard emulation off, it just nicely reports an error and exits,
|
|
otherwise, if the switch is on, I'd have to reboot. How do I fix this
|
|
or what could be wrong?
|
|
|
|
Ian.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
=============================================================================
|
|
Astaria Digital Enterprises Ian_Upright@mindlink.bc.ca
|
|
=============================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: myhst1+@pitt.edu (Ming Y Huang)
|
|
Subject: 2 IDE with SCSI?
|
|
Date: 20 Sep 1994 01:43:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Hi,
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to use 2 IDE drives with SCSI drive? I tried but the
|
|
computer will not use the scsi drive, and says that there are already
|
|
C: and D: drive installed?
|
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
|
|
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:50:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <35j2pa$59u@crl.crl.com>, Alan L. Cassel <alcassel@crl.com> wrote:
|
|
>Jeff Kesselman (jeffpk@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|
>: I'm a little confused here, help me out. As an honest-to-goodness, real,
|
|
>: live ex-programmer turned intellectual property attorney you aught ot be
|
|
>: aware that the above is somewhat non-sensical.
|
|
>
|
|
>: One does not 'write' a copyright. A copyright is the right to copy
|
|
>: automaticly granted at the time a work is created. One MAY write a
|
|
>: liscense, or some other contract, that grants some rigths to others, but
|
|
>: thsi is a contract, not a copyright.
|
|
>
|
|
>You are correct to distinguish "copyright" and "license." But rather
|
|
>than use your definitions, I would prefer to say that a
|
|
>copyright is a form of protection applicable to certain types of subject
|
|
>matter that provides the owner of the copyright of a protected work with
|
|
>certain exclusive rights with respect to that work, subject to certain
|
|
>limitions. And a license (in the sense applicable here) is a grant of
|
|
>authority from the copyright owner concerning the protected work
|
|
>and authorizing someone else to do something with the protected work that
|
|
>would otherwise be exclusively the right of the copyright owner to do.
|
|
|
|
Great definitons. As a mater of fact, they remind me alot of the last
|
|
definitons I read through (in 'The Multi-Media producer's legal survival
|
|
guide, a real good, if expensive, guide to intellectual property rights
|
|
issues for non-lawyers.) I suppose that is because this is the 'correct'
|
|
legal terminology?
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
>However, as the smiley in my article indicated, my comment was directed
|
|
>to the remark that programmers should not be trying to draft their own
|
|
>agreements without help.
|
|
>
|
|
Uhuh. A good peice of advice. I've written one 'plain-language'
|
|
contract, for a very simple and straightfoward agreement, but I've also
|
|
had alot of exposure to this issue AND not alot of meoney was involved.
|
|
You can bet if any REAL money was invovled i woudl have hired a lawyer to
|
|
'debug' it.. ;)
|
|
|
|
>: There is already too much confusion about this fundamentally basic and
|
|
>: simple concept. Lets try not to add to it by endorsing incorrect statements.
|
|
>
|
|
>The fact that my article was in reply to a confused remark about
|
|
>copyright law simply adds to the sense of irony. :-)
|
|
|
|
Guess so.
|
|
|
|
I guess I have run into SO much confusion on what a copyright
|
|
is, and SO much resulting paranoia by people who don't understand it,
|
|
that these days i take ANY chance I can to clear some of it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments!
|
|
|
|
Jeff Kesselman
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
|
|
|
|
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
|
|
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
|
|
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
|
|
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
|
|
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
|
|
|
|
End of Linux-Misc Digest
|
|
******************************
|