[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy/sco sco-preemption.html sco-v-ib...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy/sco sco-preemption.html sco-v-ib... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:03:01 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/07/29 14:03:00
Modified files:
philosophy/sco : sco-preemption.html sco-v-ibm.html
Log message:
Template and add links to the missing translations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
Patches:
Index: sco-preemption.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- sco-preemption.html 26 Apr 2005 18:32:31 -0000 1.8
+++ sco-preemption.html 29 Jul 2008 14:02:42 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,78 +1,65 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
-
-<head>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<title>SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity</title>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
-<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
-<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
-</head>
-
-<!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
-<!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
-<!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
-<!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
-<!-- See validator.w3.org -->
-
-<body>
-
-<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity</h2>
-<h3>SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity</h3>
<p>by <strong>Eben Moglen</strong></p>
<p>Monday 18 August 2003</p>
<p>
Now that the tide has turned, and SCO is facing the dissolution of its
-legal position, claiming to "enforce its intellectual property rights"
-while actually massively infringing the rights of others, the company and
-its lawyers have jettisoned even the appearance of legal responsibility.
-Last week's Wall Street Journal carried statements by Mark Heise, outside
-counsel for SCO, challenging the "legality" of the Free Software
-Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects
-against the baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by
-users of free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing
-distribution of the Linux kernel, a distribution which infringes the
-copyrights of thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the
-world. As IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement
-and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's
-legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect
-SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its
-application to the current situation. But there aren't any best
-arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what SCO's lawyer
-actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.
-</p>
-<p>
-According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge the
-GPL's "legality" on the ground that the GPL permits licensees to make
-unlimited copies of programs it covers, while copyright law only allows a
-single copy to be made. The GPL, the Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying,
-"is preempted by federal copyright law."
+legal position, claiming to “enforce its intellectual property
+rights” while actually massively infringing the rights of
+others, the company and its lawyers have jettisoned even the
+appearance of legal responsibility. Last week's Wall Street Journal
+carried statements by Mark Heise, outside counsel for SCO, challenging
+the “legality” of the Free Software Foundation's GNU
+General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects against the
+baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by users of
+free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing distribution of
+the Linux kernel, a distribution which infringes the copyrights of
+thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the world. As
+IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and
+violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's
+legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would
+expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the
+GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren't
+any best arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what
+SCO's lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge
+the GPL's “legality” on the ground that the GPL permits
+licensees to make unlimited copies of programs it covers, while
+copyright law only allows a single copy to be made. The GPL, the
+Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying, “is preempted by federal
+copyright law.”
</p>
+
<p>
This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a
violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer
to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could
permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program.
-That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed
-theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, MIT/X11, and
-all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft
-Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for
-the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded
-by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the
-hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which
-the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of
-Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the
-law. Redmond will be surprised.
+That would make not just the GPL “illegal.” Mr Heise's
+supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL,
+MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate
+the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate
+Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating
+system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk
+drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers.
+The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make
+multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise,
+violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.
</p>
+
<p>
Of course, Mr Heise's statement is nothing but moonshine, based on an
intentional misreading of the Copyright Act that would fail on any law
school copyright examination. Mr Heise is referring to section 117 of
-the US Copyright Act, which is entitled "Limitation on exclusive
-rights: computer programs," and which provides that:
+the US Copyright Act, which is entitled “Limitation on exclusive
+rights: computer programs,” and which provides that:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
@@ -99,13 +86,14 @@
the Act generally prohibits making any copy of a copyrighted work
without license, in the case of computer programs one can both make
and even alter the work for certain purposes <em>without any license
-at all</em>. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what copyright
-owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is utterly
-bogus. It has no support in statutory language, legislative history,
-case law, or the constitutional policy that lies behind the copyright
-system. Were this argument actually presented to a court it would
-certainly fail.
+at all</em>. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what
+copyright owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is
+utterly bogus. It has no support in statutory language, legislative
+history, case law, or the constitutional policy that lies behind the
+copyright system. Were this argument actually presented to a court it
+would certainly fail.
</p>
+
<p>
The release of this astounding statement is actually good news for
developers and users of free software. It shows that SCO has no
@@ -124,46 +112,20 @@
</em>
</p>
-<hr />
<h4><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read related
to SCO</a>.</h4>
-<hr />
-<div class="translations">
-<p><a id="translations"></a>
-<b>Translations of this page</b>:<br />
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-[
- <a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.html">English</a>
-| <a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.fr.html">Français</a> <!--
French -->
-]
-
-</p>
</div>
-
-<div class="copyright">
-<p>
-Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
-</p>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -175,7 +137,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © Eben Moglen, 2003.
+Copyright © 2003 Eben Moglen
<br />
Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.
@@ -184,10 +146,36 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2005/04/26 18:32:31 $ $Author: alex_muntada $
+$Date: 2008/07/29 14:02:42 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/sco/sco-preemption.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: sco-v-ibm.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- sco-v-ibm.html 7 Feb 2007 02:35:40 -0000 1.11
+++ sco-v-ibm.html 29 Jul 2008 14:02:42 -0000 1.12
@@ -1,105 +1,90 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
-
-<head>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<title>FSF Statement on SCO v. IBM</title>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
-<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
-<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
-
<meta name="description" content="FSF Statement on SCO v. IBM lawsuit" />
<meta name="keywords" content="SCO, IBM, GPL, infringement, violation, FSF,
GNU, Linux, freedom, software" />
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>FSF Statement on <cite>SCO v. IBM</cite></h2>
-</head>
-
-<!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
-<!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
-<!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
-<!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
-<!-- See validator.w3.org -->
-
-<body>
-
-<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
-
-<h3>FSF Statement on <cite>SCO v. IBM</cite></h3>
-<p><strong>Eben Moglen</strong></p>
+<p>by <strong>Eben Moglen</strong></p>
<p>June 25, 2003</p>
<p>
-The lawsuit brought by the SCO Group against IBM has
-generated many requests for comment by FSF. The Foundation has
-refrained from making official comments on the litigation because only
-the plaintiff's allegations have been reported; comment on unverified
-allegations would ordinarily be premature. More disturbing than the
-lawsuit itself, however, have been public statements by
-representatives of SCO, which have irresponsibly suggested doubts
-about the legitimacy of free software overall. These statements
-require response.
+The lawsuit brought by the SCO Group against IBM has generated many
+requests for comment by FSF. The Foundation has refrained from making
+official comments on the litigation because only the plaintiff's
+allegations have been reported; comment on unverified allegations
+would ordinarily be premature. More disturbing than the lawsuit
+itself, however, have been public statements by representatives of
+SCO, which have irresponsibly suggested doubts about the legitimacy of
+free software overall. These statements require response.
</p>
+
<p>
SCO's lawsuit asserts that IBM has breached contractual obligations
between the two companies, and also that IBM has incorporated trade
secret information concerning the design of the Unix operating system
-into what SCO calls generally ``Linux.'' This latter claim has
-recently been expanded in extra-judicial statements by SCO employees
-and officers to include suggestions that ``Linux'' includes material
-copied from Unix in violation of SCO's copyrights. An allegation to
-this effect was contained in letters apparently sent by SCO to 1500 of
-the world's largest companies warning against use of free software on
-grounds of possible infringement liability.
+into what SCO calls generally “Linux.” This latter claim
+has recently been expanded in extra-judicial statements by SCO
+employees and officers to include suggestions that “Linux”
+includes material copied from Unix in violation of SCO's copyrights.
+An allegation to this effect was contained in letters apparently sent
+by SCO to 1500 of the world's largest companies warning against use of
+free software on grounds of possible infringement liability.
</p>
+
<p>
It is crucial to clarify certain confusions that SCO's spokesmen have
shown no disposition to dispel. In the first place, SCO has used
-``Linux'' to mean ``all free software,'' or ``all free software
-constituting a Unix-like operating system.'' This confusion, which
-the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown
-to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often
-predicted. ``Linux'' is the name of the kernel most often used in
-free software systems. But the operating system as a whole contains
-many other components, some of them products of the Foundation's GNU
-Project, others written elsewhere and published under free software
-licenses; the totality is GNU, the free operating system on which we
-have been working since 1984. Approximately half GNU's components are
-copyrighted works of the Free Software Foundation, including the
-C-compiler GCC, the GDB debugger, the C library Glibc, the bash shell,
-among other essential parts. The combination of GNU and the Linux
-kernel produces the GNU/Linux system, which is widely used on a
-variety of hardware and which <em>taken as a whole</em> duplicates
-the functions once only performed by the Unix operating system.
+“Linux” to mean “all free software,” or
+“all free software constituting a Unix-like operating
+system.” This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation
+warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading
+consequences the Foundation has often predicted. “Linux”
+is the name of the kernel most often used in free software systems.
+But the operating system as a whole contains many other components,
+some of them products of the Foundation's GNU Project, others written
+elsewhere and published under free software licenses; the totality is
+GNU, the free operating system on which we have been working since
+1984. Approximately half GNU's components are copyrighted works of
+the Free Software Foundation, including the C-compiler GCC, the GDB
+debugger, the C library Glibc, the bash shell, among other essential
+parts. The combination of GNU and the Linux kernel produces the
+GNU/Linux system, which is widely used on a variety of hardware and
+which <em>taken as a whole</em> duplicates the functions once only
+performed by the Unix operating system.
</p>
+
<p>
SCO's confusing use of names makes the basis of its claims unclear:
-has SCO alleged that trade secrets of Unix's originator, AT&T--of
-which SCO is by intermediate transactions the successor in
-interest--have been incorporated by IBM in the kernel, Linux, or in
-parts of GNU? If the former, there is no justification for the broad
-statements urging the Fortune 1500 to be cautious about using free
-software, or GNU programs generally. If, on the other hand, SCO
-claims that GNU contains any Unix trade secret or copyrighted
-material, the claim is almost surely false. Contributors to the GNU
-Project promise to follow the Free Software Foundation's rules for the
-project, which specify--among other things--that contributors must
-not enter into non-disclosure agreements for technical information
-relevant to their work on GNU programs, and that they must not consult
-or make any use of source code from non-free programs, including
-specifically Unix. The Foundation has no basis to believe that GNU
-contains any material about which SCO or anyone else could assert
-valid trade secret or copyright claims. Contributors could have made
-misrepresentations of fact in their copyright assignment statements,
-but failing willful misrepresentation by a contributor, which has never
-happened so far as the Foundation is aware, there is no significant
-likelihood that our supervision of the freedom of our free software
-has failed. The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements
-SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has
-SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the
-Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel
-for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the
-Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way.
+has SCO alleged that trade secrets of Unix's originator,
+AT&T—of which SCO is by intermediate transactions the
+successor in interest—have been incorporated by IBM in the
+kernel, Linux, or in parts of GNU? If the former, there is no
+justification for the broad statements urging the Fortune 1500 to be
+cautious about using free software, or GNU programs generally. If, on
+the other hand, SCO claims that GNU contains any Unix trade secret or
+copyrighted material, the claim is almost surely false. Contributors
+to the GNU Project promise to follow the Free Software Foundation's
+rules for the project, which specify—among other
+things—that contributors must not enter into non-disclosure
+agreements for technical information relevant to their work on GNU
+programs, and that they must not consult or make any use of source
+code from non-free programs, including specifically Unix. The
+Foundation has no basis to believe that GNU contains any material
+about which SCO or anyone else could assert valid trade secret or
+copyright claims. Contributors could have made misrepresentations of
+fact in their copyright assignment statements, but failing willful
+misrepresentation by a contributor, which has never happened so far as
+the Foundation is aware, there is no significant likelihood that our
+supervision of the freedom of our free software has failed. The
+Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees
+have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our
+requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation
+holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with
+IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by
+IBM—that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way.
</p>
+
<p>
Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions
concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely
@@ -115,27 +100,29 @@
commercially published itself under a license that specifically
permitted unrestricted copying and distribution.
</p>
+
<p>
The same fact stands as an irrevocable barrier to SCO's claim that
-``Linux'' violates SCO's copyright on Unix source code.
+“Linux” violates SCO's copyright on Unix source code.
Copyright, as the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly
-emphasized, covers <em>expressions</em>, not <em>ideas</em>. Copyright
-on source code covers not how a program works, but only the specific
-language in which the functionality is expressed. A program written
-from scratch to express the function of an existing program in a new
-way does not infringe the original program's copyright. GNU and Linux
-duplicate some aspects of Unix functionality, but are independent
-bodies, not copies of existing expressions. But even if SCO could
-show that some portions of its Unix source code were copied into the
-kernel, the claim of copyright infringement would fail, because SCO
-has itself distributed the kernel under GPL. By doing so, SCO
-licensed everyone everywhere to copy, modify, and redistribute that
-code. SCO cannot now turn around and argue that it sold people code
-under GPL, guaranteeing their right to copy, modify and redistribute
-anything included, but that it somehow did not license the copying and
-redistribution of any copyrighted material of their own which that
-code contained.
+emphasized, covers <em>expressions</em>, not <em>ideas</em>.
+Copyright on source code covers not how a program works, but only the
+specific language in which the functionality is expressed. A program
+written from scratch to express the function of an existing program in
+a new way does not infringe the original program's copyright. GNU and
+Linux duplicate some aspects of Unix functionality, but are
+independent bodies, not copies of existing expressions. But even if
+SCO could show that some portions of its Unix source code were copied
+into the kernel, the claim of copyright infringement would fail,
+because SCO has itself distributed the kernel under GPL. By doing so,
+SCO licensed everyone everywhere to copy, modify, and redistribute
+that code. SCO cannot now turn around and argue that it sold people
+code under GPL, guaranteeing their right to copy, modify and
+redistribute anything included, but that it somehow did not license
+the copying and redistribution of any copyrighted material of their
+own which that code contained.
</p>
+
<p>
In the face of these facts, SCO's public statements are at best
misleading and irresponsible. SCO has profited handily from the work
@@ -156,45 +143,20 @@
</em>
</p>
-<hr />
<h4><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read related
to SCO</a>.</h4>
-<hr />
-<div class="translations">
-<p><a id="translations"></a>
-<b>Translations of this page</b>:<br />
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-[
- <a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html">English</a>
-| <a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.fr.html">French</a> <!-- French -->
-]
-</p>
</div>
-
-<div class="copyright">
-<p>
-Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
-</p>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -206,8 +168,10 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © Free Software Foundation, 2003.
-<br />
+Copyright © 2003 Free Software Foundation Inc.,
+</p>
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
+<p>
Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.
</p>
@@ -215,10 +179,40 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/07 02:35:40 $ $Author: mattl $
+$Date: 2008/07/29 14:02:42 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco-v-ibm.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
</body>
</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy/sco sco-preemption.html sco-v-ib...,
Yavor Doganov <=