|
|
| Blepp "Shows" Code in Germany - Probably Ritchie's Malloc.c Again |
 |
|
Friday, June 18 2004 @ 10:21 AM EDT
|
Gregory Blepp opened his suitcase and out pops what onlookers say was probably Dennis Ritchie's malloc.c again. Memories are made of this. He spoke yesterday on IP and SCO at the German University we told you about last week.
SCO, of course, learns nothing from failure. They remind me of tobacco companies. If it doesn't sell in one country, pack up your suitcase and offer it in another, where hopefully folks aren't as well-versed in the facts about what is good for you. Of course it didn't work for Mr. Blepp. I guess he forgot what happened when SCO showed the slides at last year's SCOForum. Heise has the story, in German, naturally. They report on Blepp's 90 minute talk, and they say that the audience was full of Linux folks, who had prepared well and asked good questions during the Q & A, or as my computer translates it: "For the regret of the organizer in the following two-hour discussion
hardly the role of mental property for the knowledge company of the
future one discussed, the actual topic of the meeting. This
disciplined been because of it that alone the well prepared listeners
from Linux stocks carried their questions forward, altogether very
much and essentially." Ah. Altogether very much and essentially. That sounds perfect. If any of you were there, please let us know how it went in more detail.
Heise indicates the audience was about 80% Linux folks. A stream of the entire meeting will be published in the coming week, the article says, by the university. It will be here when it is ready. The ACHTUNG notice just says that Blepp was definitely going to show the code. Heh heh. Maybe they haven't become as knowledgeable about SCO's ways yet as we have in the states. So much more water under the bridge here. Jena, the university, has asked SCO to let them put up the code too, I gather, along with the streaming media of the talk and are awaiting authorization. Not holding their breath, I hope.
Here is a bit more from the article:
"In the past Gregory Blepp had maintained opposite mirror on-line one
to lead a suit-case of full proofs with itself. On the occasion of its
lecture in Jena it stressed that it does not concern so much the code
theft, but that rather a violation of contract would be present by
IBM. . . .
"Contract and license conditions play possibly also with the all-newest
SCO product, on Tuesday the introduced UnixWare 7.1.4 a role. In this
distribution the fourth CD with the GNU C compiler and the Linux
Kernel Personality module (LKP) are missing. Both modules are
necessary, if SCOs Unix is to behave approximately like a Linux
system." In German: "In der Vergangenheit hatte Gregory Blepp gegenüber Spiegel Online behauptet, einen Koffer voller Beweise mit sich zu führen. Anlässlich seines Vortrags in Jena betonte er, dass es nicht so sehr um den Code-Diebstahl gehe, sondern dass vielmehr eine Vertragsverletzung durch IBM vorliegen würde.
"Zum Bedauern des Veranstalters wurde in der anschließenden zweistündigen Diskussion kaum über die Rolle von geistigem Eigentum für die Wissensgesellschaft der Zukunft diskutiert, dem eigentlichen Thema der Veranstaltung. Dies habe daran gelegen, dass allein die gut vorbereiteten Zuhörer aus dem Linux-Lager ihre Fragen vortrugen, insgesamt sehr diszipliniert und sachlich. . . .
"Vertrags- und Lizenzbedingungen spielen möglicherweise auch beim allerneuesten SCO-Produkt, der am Dienstag vorgestellten UnixWare 7.1.4 eine Rolle. In dieser Distribution fehlt die vierte CD mit dem GNU C Compiler und dem Linux-Kernel-Personality-Modul (LKP). Beide Module sind nötig, wenn sich SCOs Unix annähernd wie ein Linux-System verhalten soll. Here is a better translation from Mathias: "According to the estimation by the organizer, 80% of the participants of this 'unusually well-attended' event were from the Open-Source camp and they were well-prepared. From these visitors, there is a statement that the shown code could come from the malloc.c code from Dennis Ritchie.
"In the past, Gregory Blepp had claimed to 'Spiegel Online' he had a suit case full of proofs. While the spech in Jena he stressed that it's not so much about the theft of Code but rather a breach of contract by IBM.
"To the regret of the organizer, there was almost no discussion about the role of intellectual property in the information society (which had been the actual topic) in the 2-hour discussion afterwards. This was due to the questions of the well-prepared audience from the Linux camp - in total well-disciplined and factual."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
Can we have an extra button similar to some other websites that say "Forgot
your password? Click on this for a new password to be sent to you at your
registered email address"
The reason I ask for this is that the first time I tried to register, my email
spam filter marked the notification as spam and deleted it.
Subsequently your resistration page refuses to reregister me under the same
email address.
And if possible could you change the subject/text of your email notification so
as not to trigger spam filters?
Thanks muchly.
JdG
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: azrael on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
| n/a [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
If something needs to be corrected, like the list of files that Blepp showed
(that cannot be malloc.c again, right ?).
Loïc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html
182-1 Filed: 06/16/04
Entered: 06/17/04 Order filed o - -/-/- - - blk 1506132
Docket Text: Order denying [168-1] motion for protective order signed by Judge
Brooke C. Wells , 6/15/04 cc:atty [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
| Not that babelfish isn't amusing. Many thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
| Because both are bloody annoying. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004061808074889&tit
le=Translation%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=155599
#c155639
Kind of says most of it, summer rerun season folks.
The SCOX show is on channel rerun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
>SCO, of course, learns nothing from failure. They remind me
>of tobacco companies. If it doesn't sell in one country, pack
>up your suitcase and offer it in another, where hopefully
>folks aren't as well-versed in the facts about what is good
>for you. Of course it didn't work for Mr. Blepp. I guess he
>forgot what happened when SCO showed the slides at last
>year's SCOForum.
PJ -- amazing reference to tobacco companies, given AdTI's previous history!
keep up the great work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: drh on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
I wonder...
If I remember rightly, newSCO was forced to pull it's FUD
campaign in Germany because they were unwilling to show
their proof. Now we have a newSCO vice-president showing a
few pages of most likely irrelevant text claiming that as
part of their proof.
Now, newSCO may be able to re-start their German FUD
machine because they can say that they did show that they
had proof at this conference. They can also say that they
cannot show more without a court order or NDA or similar,
allowing their FUD to continue until either a German court
forces their hand or they lose the US cases.
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brooker on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
===========================================
PJ writes: "Memories are made of this."
===========================================
I love the droll commentary every bit as much as I enjoy the rich amount of
learning resources this web site offers.
There are those who occasionally belittle "Thank you" posts as being
trivial. But, the truth is that I visit this site to read and learn about
things I've had no experience with before.
I have little else to offer besides appreciation. The hard work and cooperative
efforts here are wonderful to watch.
And it's all presented in an interesting and entertaining way. It's those
humorous gems that are sprinkled through it all that make me bust out laughing
(which makes others in the room here stare at me in puzzlement).
I hope there are tons of ordinary folks out there, just like me, who are reading
and learning and watching it all unwind.
If I am being trivial or repetitive here, I'm sorry...but I can't help it. I
gotta say thank you when I've received something of value. It's just good
manners.
brooker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Why isn't this is a violation of the German court settlements?
Or is it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
SCO: When Bad Things Happen to Good Brands
By David Coursey
June 15, 2004
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1612935,00.asp
You might like this one.
(Then again, you might not.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
Remember Blipverts from the old Max Headroom?
Now we have a continuing stream of Bleppverts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bleppverts - Authored by: drh on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Bleppverts - Authored by: zcat on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Bleppverts - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 12:32 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
This is the formal order by Magistrate Judge Wells denying SCO's last minute
motion ("expedited motion for protective order") to delay IBM's
depositions of AT&T's Frasure, Wilson, and the Sequent guy.
There is a subtle but sharp pointed stick shoved into SCO by Wells here
If you remember, SCO argued in it's motion that they needed the same attorneys
to attend the Frasure depo on June 8th, as to attend the Kimball hearing on June
8th.
IBM's answer was essentially: You've got lots of attorneys, use a different one
In IBM-182, we see Wells has an even sharper answer: "to the extent that
SCO's motion is premised on its need to have the same attorney appear both at
the deposition of David Frasure and at the hearing scheduled June 8, 2004,
before the Honorable Dale A.Kimball. Judge Kimball is willing to reschedule the
hearing to accommodate SCO's counsel."
Of course, SCO didn't even ask Kimball to reschedule the June 8th hearing...
So Well has exposed SCO's argument (that they needed the same attorneys to
attend the Frasure depo on June 8th, as to attend the Kimball hearing on June
8th) - for what it is - a made-up excuse. In other words, they didn't actually
care about the 2 events being at the same time - instead they simply wanted to
use that as a made-up excuse for delay.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JeR on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
| SCO
vs. Linux: Suitcase opened, CD vanished, previously here
[groklaw.net]. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
"Contract and License issues will probably also play a role in the newest
SCO product, the on tuesday introduced Unixware 7.1.4. In this Distribution the
forth CD with the GNU C compiler and the Linux Kernel Personality Module is
lacking. Both modules are necessary when one wants to connnect SCO unix to a
linux system. "
Who would want to buy ANY SCO product given their propensity to sue their OWN
users! Do they really think they have a userbase willing to be abused all over
again? I for one would never buy anything from this company.
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: QTlurker on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
| Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Copyright Bill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
SCO no longer distribute GCC with Unixware 7.1.4
I think they have removed so they will have a (marginally) better argument that
they haven't GPLed it
I think also if you look at IBM-157-27-G they assert a copyright claim to parts
of it or related to it (?)
SCO's strategy appears to be making as much a pest of themselves as possible
until somebody pays them off. This is why they are asking for every iteration of
AIX, when clearly they can not have fully examined what they already have (they
say so explicitly in their memo on discovery, and they also say so by
implication by claiming lines like copies of the GPL in IBM-157-27-G)
My prediction is that SCO expects that they will lose the discovery battle on
every iteration of AIX (they already lost in twice, on Dec 5, and Feb 6 when
they asked for the same thing). I also predict that SCO expects that they will
most likely lose the IBM partial summary judgement motion.
Therefore if you put yourself in Darl's mind (yes I feel dirty), they would most
likely be thinking of the next PR event to distract from imminent defeats in
court, and also how to make a new pest of themselves.
Suing FSF over GCC after they lose the current IBM issues, would fit the bill
nicely for Darl.
Removing GCC from UnixWare is their preparation for this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
I wish SCOG would get it's story straight.
Now Blepp says that most of the
evidence that Linux infringes on SCOG's copyrights is the IBM contract.
This in contrast to the mountains of entire files listed without
specificity in response to IBM's discovery.
Darl's interview with
Farber has him saying ""We'll be glad to take our contracts against the
newsletter. OK? If you look at what the newsletter is claiming, it's claiming
that you, in fact, own the derivative work. We've said that from the very first
filing in the IBM case. IBM owns their derivative works. That's what the
newsletter says. We're saying we have an easement through the back of the
property."
So Darl says that IBM, not SCOG, owns the copyright to the
code IBM contributed. Thus SCOSource, which deals which deals with copyrights,
has nothing to do with IBM's contracts. Thus Blepp's having the IBM contracts
is no proof at all.
But letters from
SCOG say people have to buy SCOSource licences because of a bunch of header
files that IBM has nothing to with (again, making Blepp's "evidence"
nonsensical). And we go back to the discovery, where SCOG has not shown,
line-by-line with specificity, how these header files infringe on their
copyrights.
When will we see SCO say "Look at the monkey! Look at the
silly monkey!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Like the bubble dancers and the other similar entertainers of old that
tantalized but really didn't show anything except maybe a few flying
undergarments, the SCO burlesque show's European tour is also a flop.
The binutils strip command is more interesting and does remove extraneous stuff
(but not intentionally comments or copyrights).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
| Tranlation from Translate.ru. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
I mean come ON! I think this really reflects on how SCO is run from a
management style and how ineffective Dale is as a CEO. I mean, how hard is it
to tell this guy no comments on court cases. This is basic.
SCO not only is a serial litigator but they are poorly managed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rao on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
This was due to the questions of the well-prepared audience from
the
Linux camp - in total well-disciplined and factual.
It
sounds like we were well represented by our German Linux brethren
in both
quantity and quality. Way to go guys. "Well-disciplined and
factual" is
exactly what we need. No need to give any pro-SCO media
types any
ammunition.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
PJ, I would think there is plenty of material here for a book! The difficult
part will be choosing which treasures to throw away.
I suggest the following as a title for a chapter in your book: 'The magical
briefcase'.
And as for the genre, I think tragi-comedy would be most appropriate here.
Just some suggestions ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ - About the book - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Too late! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Last week's copy of "The Economist" includes an article about how UNIX
was a co-operative development effort by Thompson, Ritchie et. al. at Bell
Labs.
Here's the link:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2724348[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
Some Users in the heise-Forum who were apparently there in
Jena posted a report to the heise-Forum:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=5882499&foru
m_id=57434 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Any chance that we could see SCO's opposition memo to DC's motion to summary
disposition, before the weekend?
I need a laugh, and SCO should have filed this 2 days ago[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Judge Kimball has all but ruled SCO has no copyrights. Did anyone at the German
meeting mention this?
Who cares what Blepp does?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
If I recall correctly, shortly after the beginning of this SCO saga the FSF
called for stopping to support OpenServer and Unixware in the FSF software. This
means they would no longer test gcc and other utils with new versions of SCO's
OSes and would not issue any patch to resolve issues. Could it be that SCO is
removing this fourth CD because they cannot support the software all by
themselves? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alan_b on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
| An interesting article here. Robert
X Cringely seem to have been trying for some time to draw attention to
Microsoft's, er, innovative approach to e-mail retention and pre-trial
discovery. Definitely OT, but perhaps we should take an interest for the future. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
As mentioned in an earlier posting, there's an eyewitness
report on heise. It's incredible. I
translated the
important paragraphs (in hurry, I apologize for possible
mistakes):
In the first part of [his speech] he specified the
advantages of
Open Source and he emphazised that he's not against Open
Source.
[...]
The third part was about the lawsuit SCO vs. IBM. He
presented
parts of the controversial source code [...]. He also mentioned
the
ruling of the Bremen court, [which says] that SCO Germany is not
allowed to
claim SCO code slipped into Linux. When he said so, he
always added, "if
this is the case". Well, he got out
nicely. But he emphazises, that it's
actually no longer about the
code. This has become absolutely meaningless,
because it's inside [of
Linux] anyway. The only issue, according to SCO, is
IBM's violation
of contract by copying codelines to Linux. He also mentioned
the
complicated relations to AT&T and Novell, but only in short,
because
this would have led too far.
Furthermore, he tried to clarify if free and
proprietary software
could coexist. The Answer: yes, because SCO ships Unixware
together
with Samba, Mozilla etc. It's the GPL, SCO has problems with,
because
it would make commercial development
impossible.
[...]
During the following discussion, he told some
tales out of school.
For instance, there are only four people working for this
case at
SCO. SCO has 250 on its payroll, including 40 to 50 Caldera
Linux
developers.
In an early stage, SCO wanted IBM to pay some millions
because of
copyright infringement, but IBM ignored them for reasons
unknown.
Personally, Blepp doesn't mind about the outcome of the
lawsuit,
because SCO won't go on with UNIX (the company's reputation
ruined,
too much money spent for litigation). Meanwhile lawsuits have become
the
real business of SCO. In case SCO wins, the want to introduce a
Linux lecence
(about $ 2 - 20 per processor). That's of course
impossible with free
distributions such as Debian - solution unknown.
Secretly, SCO still
hopes, IBM will buy them - problem resolved. ---
C.S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
"Unskilled and Unaware of It"
enjoy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Hi PJ. Philip here.
Adding to what Matthias wrote, I quickly translated all the German from the
University site and the Heise on-line site - the website of the authoritative
German weekly c't magazine..
Of course you are free to use all of this in any way you choose:
The University of Jena website reported on 12 June 2004 that Gregory Blepp
promised to reveal “definitive code never before seen in Germany”
(http://www2.uni-jena.de/oeko/)
Heise on-line reports that Blepp gave a 90 minute presentation at the seminar
(on media regulation) in which he spoke about intellectual property (IP) and
the role of SCO in the various legal contests over the SCO Group’s IP.
In this context, Blepp, who is the VP in charge of IP-licensing outside the US
at SCO, produced some four pages of Linux and SCO code to demonstrate the
consistency between Linux and SCO-Unix, and accordingly Unixware.
In addition to the live stream broadcast of the seminar, the University would
like to publish this code on its web site, but is still awaiting authorization
(to do that) from SCO.
The organizers of the event estimate that some 80% of the participants came from
the open source community to take part in this unusually well-attended seminar.
These participants had prepared well for the meeting, and believe that the code
that was briefly displayed can be seen as coming from Dennis Ritchie’s malloc.c
Gregory Blepp had previously
(http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,295067,00.html ) told
“Spiegel-Online” (the web site of the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel – it
translates as “The Mirror”) that he would bring a suitcase-full of evidence to
the seminar. In his presentation at Jena he said it was not so much a question
of stolen code as a matter of breach of contract by IBM.
To the disappointment of the organizers, the two-hour discussion that followed
barely addressed the issue of intellectual property in the information economy
of the future, although this was supposed to be the subject of the meeting.
This change of emphasis came about because of the well-organized and disciplined
approach of the Linux supporters in framing their questions. In his response,
Blepp criticized any suggestion that there were problems with the SCO Group. He
stressed that private end users like schools and educational facilities would
never have a problem with the payment of royalties to SCO.
A video stream of the whole meeting is to be broadcast during the coming week on
servers in Jena.
Contract and licensing requirements may potentially have a role in SCO’s latest
Unixware 7.1.4 product announced on Tuesday. Notably absent from this
distribution is the fourth CD, containing the GNU C Compiler and the
Linux-Kernel-Personality-Modul (LKP). Both modules are needed if SCOs Unix is to
behave like a Linux system.
Philip in Berlin
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Some interesting Blepp quotes from another report:
Blepp: "In
einem Jahr ist alles vorbei, so oder so. Dann wird entweder
irgendwo die
Schatzkiste geöffnet, oder woanders gehen die
Lichter aus."
Blepp:
"Within a year it's
over, one way or the other. Then either somewhere the
treasure chest
will be opened, or somewhere else things will look pretty
grim."
[...]
"Auch ging er auf die Frage, wie SCO die GPL ablehnen
könne,
während es im eigenen UnixWare viel GPL Software anbieten
würde,
nicht ein. Sein Kommentar zu dieser Tatsache lautete
lediglich:
"nehmen Sie einen Anwalt, und setzen Sie die [GPL]
durch"".
[...] he didn't answer the question, how SCO could reject
the
GPL, but at the same time is shipping GPL software with UnixWare. His
only
comment on the issue was: "Hire an attorney and get it
[the GPL]
accepted" ---
C.S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
OT header post not seen so here 'tis. ?
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eddsouza on Friday, June 18 2004 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
Just found this article on Yahoo News, which calls OSS
"uncopyrighted"..!!
France Challenges Microsoft in Software
Re-Fit
"Open-source software -- uncopyrighted software
which has no license cost -- like Linux (news - web sites), OpenOffice, Mozilla,
Apache, MySQL and Evolution -- was "very credible," Dutreil
said."
Obliged if someone authoritative would take the
trouble to correct them...
Eddie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Tuesday, July 06 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Gregory Blepp has denied to give the organiser of the event in Jena a permission
to publish the code he has shown.
Blepp has only given a permission to publish the presentation when the code is
removed from it!
The struggle to get access to the code has already become a battlefield.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
