By: Stephen J. Turnbull

April 1999

• Re: anti/Law (an attempted explaination)...
• proprietary -- a truism
• Re: anti/Law (an attempted explaination)...
• Big software struggles with open source
• Re: anti/Law
• Re: anti/Law (an attempted explaination)...

May 1999

• Reasons why being proprietary hurts you more than it helps
• Microsoft may publish some source code
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced"
• the walls have ears
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced"
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced"
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced" [real one, sorry for the premature emission]
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced"
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced" [real one, sorry for the premature emission]
• Re: OpenSources "opensourced"
• Exploring the limits of Brian's understanding
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• the walls have ears
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• the walls have ears
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• Exploring the limits of free software
• Exploring the limits of free software
• Re: Exploring the limits of free software: Cygnus, and GPL
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• standards & FS
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• the walls have ears

June 1999

• Re: <various threads> (my apologies)
• Re: the walls have bears
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• Source code becoming less important
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• the walls have ears
• My ears are red (was Re: the walls have ears)
• the walls have ears
• Sun, BSD, and GNU
• Re: People only buy support for bad software ?!?
• Take this analogy and fix it (car repair? _not_)
• Take this analogy and fix it (car repair? _not_)
• Re: Back to car repair (Was Car Repair) Debian GNU/Linux...
• Take this analogy and fix it (car repair? _not_)
• Take this analogy and fix it (car repair? _not_)
• Re: My ears are red
• success metrics -- user adoption rates
• My ears are red (was Re: the walls have ears)
• Re: My ears are red
• Does anyone buy software anyway?
• (Was Car Repair) Debian GNU/Linux project's model a good starting point for free software business models.
• Re: Debian GNU/Linux project's model a good starting point for fsb
• Re: Debian GNU/Linux project's model a good starting point for fsb
• GPL business practice question
• the walls have ears
• the walls have ears
• Cygnus [was Re: the walls have ears]
• Re: [was Cygnus] now Ghostscript and Aladdin
• Unexercisable rights
• Re: [was Cygnus] now Ghostscript and Aladdin
• Re: [was Cygnus] now Ghostscript and Aladdin
• Unexercisable rights
• Unexercisable rights
• Unexercisable rights
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• Unexercisable rights
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron
• EROS license
• EROS license
• EROS license
• requesting proposals -- change detection
• 100 Acre Software...a look back
• eCos license [was Re: EROS license]
• Re: Returns to service professionals
• EROS license
• requesting proposals -- change detection
• embedded systems [was Re: EROS license]
• EROS license
• Debian out of hand?
• EROS license
• EROS and liability
• EROS and liability

July 1999

• Opening up data interchange formats (e.g., book catalogs)
• Re: Returns to service professionals
• Re: Returns to service professionals
• Returns to service professionals (was Re: New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron)
• Returns to service professionals (was Re: New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron)
• Returns to service professionals (was Re: New ESR paper: The Magic Cauldron)
• Re: Embrace and extend [was: Returns to service professionals]
• keeping protocols open (was: Returns to ...)
• keeping protocols open (was: Returns to ...)
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Free software and free music have some similar problems.
• Software Trademarks

August 1999

• cars & code
• Vendor canonization [was: Linux market projections?]
• Vendor canonization (seriously, this time)
• Re: Vendor canonization

September 1999

• New angle on the patent problem
• New angle on the patent problem
• fsb case study pointers?
• New angle on the patent problem
• New angle on the patent problem
• New angle on the patent problem
• New angle on the patent problem
• New angle on the patent problem
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• New angle on the patent problem
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• Online patent exchanges
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• Software business(es) (Was Re: EY invests in ...)
• A patent solution that is no solution
• Why software patents are bad
• Why software patents are bad
• New angle on the patent problem
• Why software patents are bad
• Why software patents are bad
• Why software patents are bad
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• Why software patents are bad
• EY invests in online patent exchange
• How do you convince IBM to oppose software patents? [was: EY invests in online patent exchange]
• Re: Open Content woes
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Re: How do you convince IBM to oppose software patents?
• Re: How do you convince IBM to oppose software patents?
• Why software patents are bad
• Re: Open Content woes
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Marketing and Sales
• Why software patents are bad
• Re: Open Content woes
• Possibly stupid GPL question
• brands, trademarks, and the GPL
• Re: Open Content woes
• law from the bottom up
• brands, trademarks, and the GPL
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real

October 1999

• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• stealth trademarks
• "Community Source License" vs. "Public License"
• "Community Source License" vs. "Public License"
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: "On Virus" -- get real
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] GPL-like Hardware Solution: Remeber the CAD file
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
• Brand name aspirin
• Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• balance
• Debian GNU/Linux
• "rights" and "freedoms"
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• balance
• "rights" and "freedoms"
• readline & GPL
• GPL & interfaces
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• [openip] Re: "rights" and "freedoms"
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• [openip] Re: "rights" and "freedoms"
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware
• software tax (was Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware)
• software tax (was Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GNU License for Hardware)
• "rights" and "freedoms"
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• freedom and human kindness (was Re: Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software)
• [openip] Re: "rights" and "freedoms"
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Methodology and credibility [was: Open letter ...]
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Correlation between
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• ways of funding
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• ways of funding
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• Reuse - is it for real?
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Data on open source business impact
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Reuse - is it for real?
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• Economic incentives to produce software in a free software regime
• forwarded message from Richard
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Software quality: free vs. proprietary
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software

November 1999

• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• GPL & interfaces
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• freedom and human kindness (was Re: Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software)
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• freedom and human kindness (was Re: Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software)
• ways of funding
• Correlation between
• freedom and human kindness (was Re: Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software)
• ways of funding
• ways of funding
• ways of funding
• ways of funding
• ways of funding
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Red Hat and Cygnus unify
• The merger: a user's perspective
• The merger: a user's perspective
• The merger: a user's perspective
• Open letter to those who believe in a right to free software
• Who holds the copyright? (was Re: The merger: a user's perspective)
• The merger: a user's perspective
• The merger: a user's perspective
• Re: Who holds the copyright?
• derived works (Re: Who holds the copyright?)
• The merger: a user's perspective
• The merger: a user's perspective
• The merger: a user's perspective
• Who holds the copyright? (was Re: The merger: a user's perspective)
• derived works (Re: Who holds the copyright?)
• Be and free software
• Re: Who holds the copyright?
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Be and free software
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Re: Who holds the copyright?
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Be and free software
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• Back to business [was: the Be thread]
• fsb-free is neither bsd-free nor gpl-free
• Fiduciary limitations
• www.oreilly.com -- Tangled Webs: What Gives Them the Right?
• Re: Steve McConnell's "Ready for Prime Time?" editorial
• Fiduciary limitations
• www.oreilly.com -- Tangled Webs: What Gives Them the Right?
• Order entry application user group
• Support as insurance
• Support as insurance

December 1999

• Support as insurance
• Support as insurance
• Re: forking the list considered harmful
• Re: forking the list considered harmful
• Why do Linux box vendors thrive?
• I believe your VA numbers
• Why EROS is Open Source
• the value chain
• the value chain
• I believe your VA numbers
• I believe your VA numbers
• Why EROS is Open Source
• the value chain
• Re: Pitching a "Big Tent" for Free Software
• Did I Do the VA Math Wrong?
• Interesting business morality statement
• Draft encryption regulations try to exempt open source

January 2000

• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• FSB marketing, was Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: FSB marketing, was Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: FSB Marketing
• Re: FSB Marketing
• Re: FSB Marketing
• Help w/ quote source -- 1m free copies of software?
• Re: Sun to free Solaris.
• Re: Sun to free Solaris.
• Re: Sun to free Solaris.
• Re: Sun to free Solaris.
• Patents (was Re: DiBona, Allman, Tiemann, O'Reilly, Perens interview)
• Re: Patents (was Re: DiBona, Allman, Tiemann, O'Reilly, Perens interview)
• Re: Patents (was Re: DiBona, Allman, Tiemann, O'Reilly, Perens interview)

February 2000

• Re: Patents (was Re: DiBona, Allman, Tiemann, O'Reilly, Perens interview)
• Re: Sun to free Solaris.
• Re: Irrational customers?
• Re: Irrational customers?
• Re: Irrational customers?
• Open Source and Government agencies
• Re: Open Source and Government agencies
• Re: Open Source and Government agencies
• Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
• Re: Open Software Description (OSD) format

March 2000

• Re: Open Source in E-Commerce
• Re: Open Source in E-Commerce
• Re: Open Source in E-Commerce
• Re: Open Source in E-Commerce
• Re: Open Source and Government agencies
• Re: fixing bugs....

April 2000

• Re: Differing IP laws
• Re: Differing IP laws
• Re: Differing IP laws

May 2000

• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Is M$ a perpetrator of attractive nuisances?
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: In defense of the market
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: In defense of the market
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• New markets and new pricing for FSBs
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: FSBs and client-server
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Re: street performer protocol
• Dwyer, FRB, Economics of Open Source
• Re: Dwyer, FRB, Economics of Open Source
• Who's running your business?
• Limited Liability License---is it free?
• Re: Who's running your business?

June 2000

• Re: Licenses vs. public domain
• Re: Who's running your business?
• Re: Licenses vs. public domain (ActiveState & Visual Perl)

July 2000

• Random interesting thought
• Re: funding indirect services
• Re: funding indirect services
• Re: funding indirect services
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: funding indirect services

August 2000

• Re: funding indirect services
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: funding indirect services (tangent)
• Re: quality, sharing, etc.
• Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• Re: quality, sharing, etc.
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer

September 2000

• Re: [Freesw] A new open source development lab
• Re: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer
• OSS meets JavaScript?
• Announce/invite: IT & development

October 2000

• Re: Open-sourcing business operations code?

November 2000

• Re: Dealing with the Open Source community
• Re: Dealing with the Open Source community

December 2000

• Re: Is free software innovative ?
• Re: Open Source for Windows
• Re: Open source vs. Closed Source salaries?
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes (rights vs. power - uncharacteristically short)
• Re: Meaning of "combined work"?
• Re: Latest on CPRM at the Register

January 2001

• Re: Meaning of "combined work"?
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes
• Re: Thought crimes

February 2001

• Re: PGP CREATOR, NAI SPLIT OVER OPEN SOURCE DIFFERENCES
• Re: [open-source] [Fwd: [icecast-dev] Xiph.org announces Vorbis Beta 4 and the Xiph.org Foundation]

March 2001

• Re: [Freesw] Re: FreeDevelopers
• Re: [Freesw] Re: FreeDevelopers
• Re: [Freesw] Re: FreeDevelopers
• Re: GNU and classified software

April 2001

• Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure

May 2001

• Re: Apple and Open Source
• Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
• Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• Re: [Freesw] priorart.org
• Re: [Freesw] priorart.org
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!? (LONG. COMPREHENSIVE)
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!? (LONG. COMPREHENSIVE)
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• Re: Opportunity lost? Challenge declined!?
• OT-ness and a new list? (Was: Opportunity lost?...)
• License Question
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software
• Re: a model of competition between free and proprietary software

June 2001

• Re: License Question
• Another dumb GPL question
• dumb GPL question
• Re: dumb GPL question
• Re: Licenses for "Running"
• Re: Another dumb GPL question
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Is the party over? was Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MSIE "Smart Tags" -- what's the real deal?
• Re: MS CodeSwap
• Releasing under OS, what License?
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
• Re: Releasing under OS, what License?
• Re: Releasing under OS, what License?
• Re: Releasing under OS, what License?
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source
• Re: [FYI] Microsoft license spurns open source

July 2001

• Lack of imagination?
• LGPL... variations on a theme
• Re: LGPL... variations on a theme
• Re: Q: Can you build an authentication system on OS?
• Re: Q: Can you build an authentication system on OS?
• Re: Q: Can you build an authentication system on OS?

August 2001

• Re: the Free Software Movement in Industry
• Re: the Free Software Movement in Industry

September 2001

• Re: As if the DMCA wasn't bad enough
• SSSCA - Analysis (Q&D)
• Re: SSSCA - Analysis (Q&D)
• authentication systems (.NET, .GNU): Its the desktop, dummy.
• Re: authentication systems (.NET, .GNU): Its the desktop, dummy.
• Re: the .NET battle ends
• Re: Objective IT review of Redhat
• Re: the .NET battle ends
• Re: the .NET battle ends
• Re: the .NET battle ends
• In defense of Bill

October 2001

• "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• FSB support businesses through history
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Free RDBMS market case (was Re: "I've got more programmers than you")
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: "I've got more programmers than you"
• Re: gross margins, R&D, S&M, G&A, and all that
• Re: shooting holes in the sky
• Re: Paying for development on a services model?
• Re: shooting holes in the sky
• Re: Paying for development on a services model?
• Re: Paying for development on a services model?
• Re: Paying for development on a services model?
• Re: Paying for development on a services model?
• Re: Mandatory donations or build from CVS...
• ransom
• crux of the essence
• Re: Ransom (long) (was: Mandatory donations...)
• Free Software Conference in Washington
• Re: Kevin's project [was Re: Ransom]
• Re: crux of the essence
• Re: crux of the essence

March 2006

• FSBs and mechanized documentation
• FSBs and mechanized documentation
• FSBs and mechanized documentation
• Re: Back on topic: Re: FSBs and mechanized documentation
• FSBs, mechanized documentation, and (meta-)data licenses
• FSBs, mechanized documentation, and (meta-)data licenses
• Re: Back on topic: Re: FSBs and mechanized documentation
• a business model
• a business model
• "Software Deficiency Futures"
• a business model
• Re: Apache chairman: Days numbered for commercial software
• Re: mechanised documentation and my business model solution

April 2006

• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: mechanised documentation and my business model solution
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: mechanised documentation and my business model solution
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• business case for mechanized documentation
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• business case for mechanized documentation
• business case for mechanized documentation
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: business case for mechanized documentation
• Re: GPLv3 draft
• Re: business case for mechanized documentation
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• A Game (Email - Kelly)
• Re: business case for mechanized documentation
• Re: A Game (Email - Kelly)
• Re: Comments in code
• Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
• Re: A Game (Email - Kelly)
• Re: A Game (Email - Kelly)
• Larry Ellison on FSBs
• Re: Larry Ellison on FSBs
• Re: Larry Ellison on FSBs
• Re: Larry Ellison on FSBs
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat

May 2006

• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
• patents
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• patents
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• patents
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patents
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patents
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patents
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: Business
• Re: Business
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: now "slavery and intellectual property"
• Re: Business
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: near/medium future digital media economics
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful

June 2006

• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patents and web services
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
• Re: Anyone know of a free software business list?
• Re: Anyone know of a free software business list?
• Re: Revenue and business models
• Re: Free software businesses
• Re: Free software businesses
• Re: Revenue and business models
• Re: Free software businesses
• Re: Free software businesses

September 2006

• Re: Software Licensing
• Re: termless copyright and patents
• Re: Software Licensing
• Re: termless copyright and patents
• Re: termless copyright and patents
• Re: termless copyright and patents
• Re: termless copyright and patents

October 2007

• Re: offering pre-purchases

---