May 2004 - main - earth.li

Software Patents
by John Seago 26 May '04

26 May '04

I have received the following from the Green Party: "I can confirm that the Green Party is opposed to the EU proposals on software patenting, and supports open source operating systems such as Linux. The GP also wishes to see an end to the effective Microsoft monopoly in many software applications. Margaret Wright, our lead candidate for the European Election, attended a meeting in Brussels last month, at which the Federation of European Green Parties took this view. yours sincerely, John Matthissen Campaign Co-ordinator" -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

1 0

[Alug Announce][lugmaster] FW: SANE 2004: Call for Posters (fwd)
by MJ Ray 26 May '04

26 May '04

ALUG Announce Please send announcements to Announce(a)lists.alug.org.uk Unsub, change settings via http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce ----- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 2004-05-17 21:06:46 +0100 From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk(a)lug.org.uk> Subject: [lugmaster] FW: SANE 2004: Call for Posters could you please pass this Call for Posters for SANE 2004 around?? The deadline is approaching and we need posters :) http://www.nluug.nl/events/sane2004/CfPosters.html ---------------------------------- Call for Posters 4th International SANE Conference September 27 - October 1, 2004 RAI Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands A conference organized by the NLUUG, the UNIX User Group - The Netherlands Co-sponsored by Stichting NLnet and with the co-operation of USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association OVERVIEW Technology is advancing, the systems administration profession is changing rapidly, and you have to master new skills to keep apace. At the 4th International SANE (System Administration and Network Engineering) technical conference and tutorial tracks you'll find a wealth of opportunities to meet other system administrators and network (security) professionals with similar interests, while attending a program that brings you the latest in tools, techniques, security and networking. You can learn from tutorials, refereed papers and invited talks. The official language at the conference will be English. The conference will be located at the Amsterdam RAI Congress Centre. Included in the conference are: * Tutorial Program (September 27-29) * Technical Conference (September 30 - October 1) * Exhibition (September 30 - October 1) POSTER SESSIONS The SANE Posters provide an excellent forum for authors to present their work in an informal and interactive setting. Posters are ideal for presenting speculative, late-breaking results or for giving an introduction to interesting, innovative work. Posters are intended to provide authors and participants with the ability to connect with each other and to engage in discussions about the work. The posters will provide information about the applications, architecture, implementation, performance and security of modern computing systems and IP networks. Posters that present Work In Progress and draw important conclusions from practical experience are especially welcome. Posters are being solicited in areas including but not limited to: * Security tools and techniques: IPsec, Network Intrusion Detection * Systems, Firewalls, VPNs, practical cryptography, auditing and * computer forensics * Attacks against networks and machines, including denial-of-service * attacks * Adventures in nomadic and wireless computing * Web security fundamentals and practical web site maintenance * Integrating new networking technologies like IPv6 * Network monitoring and traffic shaping solutions * System and network performance tuning * Managing enterprise-wide email and fighting spam * Innovative system administration tools and techniques * Distributed or automated system administration * Managing large amounts of computers * Unix on the desktop (including MacOS X) REFEREED POSTER SUBMISSIONS Successful posters are carefully designed to convey technical details. They should also attract the attention of attendees as they stroll past the displays. The goal is to develop a poster that encourages and facilitates small groups of individuals interested in a technical area to gather and interact. Posters will be reviewed and selected by the Poster Committee. An award will be given at the conference for the best poster. A submission must include an abstract of up to 400 words. Including a rough sketch of the poster is recommended. Also include the URL of a web site related to the poster, if applicable. Submissions must be done through this web form Authors of accepted submissions must provide a one or two page summary for publication in the conference proceedings. This brings the subject to an even larger audience. These summaries are held in the highest confidence prior to publication in the conference proceedings. By agreeing to present your poster at SANE 2004, you also give permission to the SANE 2004 conference organizers to publish the poster and summary on the NLUUG and SANE web sites. PRACTICAL * One author per accepted poster can attend the conference, * exhibition and social event free of charge, excluding travel and * lodging expenses. * The posters will be located in a public area, close to the * exhibition, viewable for all conference attendees. * The size of the board for the poster is about 1.40 meter wide and * 1.00 meter high. Note that this is landscape orientation! Push * pins can be used to attach material to the board. * There is a small table beside each poster with room for leaflets * and a laptop for a live demo. If you need more room consider * getting a booth at the exhibition. * The posters are to be set up Wednesday evening, September 29. * During both lunch breaks someone must be present at the poster to * interact with conference attendees. At other times this is also * possible, putting a time schedule on the poster is recommended. IMPORTANT DATES Submission due: June 7, 2004 Notification to authors: June 28, 2004 Summary due: August 16, 2004 CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS Poster Committee sane2004-poster(a)sane.nl Bram Moolenaar (chair) Armijn Hemel, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL Hans Onvlee, Stichting NLnet, Den Bosch, NL Peter Honeyman, CITI, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Event Organization sane2004-org(a)sane.nl Wytze van der Raay, treasurer, Stichting NLnet, Amsterdam, NL Mari??lle Klatten and Sabina Beeke, conference organizers, ICONIQ, Baarn, NL _______________________________________________ lugmaster mailing list lugmaster(a)mailman.lug.org.uk http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lugmaster -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing ----- Send discussion replies to main(a)lists.alug.org.uk (Reply-To set) Unsub, change settings via http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce

1 0

OCR for Linux
by Wayne Stallwood 26 May '04

26 May '04

Has anyone had experience of (or know of) a practical (and preferably open source) OCR application for Linux. I am looking for something that will play nicely with any scanner Sane recognises and is either scriptable or has a batch mode. Regards Wayne

2 3

Software Patents
by John Seago 25 May '04

25 May '04

I have received the following from Rosalind Gill Liberal Democrat EP candidate for the East of England: "Dear Mr Seago, I have concerns about the EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. The party position is as follows We addressed the issue in the Liberal Democrat IT policy paper "Making IT Work" which was adopted at our Spring Conference in 2003. This made it clear that we are extremely sceptical about the application of patents in the software field. We state that we would "support continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area." The full policy paper may be of interest to you and can be read in the policy section of our website at: http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.folders/section.policy/ folder.policy_papers Richard Allan MP, the Liberal Democrat Information Technology Spokesman, who has been campaigning actively for the Directive to be amended. He has raised this in correspondence and meetings with the relevant Ministers and liaised with colleagues in the European Parliament and campaign groups. Most recently, Richard lobbied Jacqui Smith MP as the Minister representing the UK at the Competitiveness Council to try and persuade her to reconsider the Government's support for the current draft of the Directive. I attach an extract from his letter to the Minister: "Software is very different from other inventions that are appropriate for the patent system. In the software world there is no shortage of ideas but rather the difficulty lies in implementing these ideas. It is the production of the code that is difficult and this is adequately covered by copyright law which safeguards the returns of the author. This is very different from fields such as pharmaceuticals where the hard work lies in the research that produces the discovery. There is a public interest in a patent granted to an invention that has been produced after challenging and expensive research as this enables others to use it under license conditions. There is no such public interest in awarding a patent to a computer related invention that many other people are likely to arrive at with very little outlay. "The response from the patent authorities is often that the inventiveness test means that they will not grant patents to discoveries that others could easily arrive at. However, the speed of progress in the IT field means that what is not obvious today may frequently be obvious tomorrow. "A very good case that highlights the inappropriateness of broad patentability in this field is the Bromcom case. This case is being conducted by the Department for Education and Skills who are seeking to break a patent awarded for the use of wireless network systems to transmit pupil data. This was deemed to be inventive in 1993 when the patent was applied for but would now be seen as trivial with today's wireless network systems. "What we are faced with because of the Bromcom patent is a situation that is harmful to the public interest in a number of respects. "Firstly, it could require schools to pay license fees using public money whenever they wish to implement pupil management systems over wireless networks. The DfES has presumably mounted its legal action as it sees this as a better value option than paying the license fees. "Secondly, it has created uncertainty in the market thereby discouraging a range of suppliers from creating products in this area. It has acted to reduce the quality of product by existing suppliers. "Thirdly, it acts as a disincentive for any new small supplier to get into this business. The fact that they would need the financial and legal expertise to deal with patent and licensing claims means that many small businesses will stay out of these product areas leading to a reduction in overall innovation. "The Bromcom patent was issued under the existing rules. It involves hardware as well as software so is presumably covered by the Directive as a computer-implemented invention rather than being pure software. I would suggest that a very good test for the Directive would be to see if it will allow the Bromcom patent through. If the answer is yes then this contributes to the argument for there to be a tightening of the definition of patentability rather than just a continuation of the status quo as currently seems to be on offer. "I hope that your officials will be able to liaise with the DfES to look into the Bromcom patent case as this is such a prime example of the threat that many people fear may result from the unamended Directive. "In general terms, the fear is that we may inadvertently create a situation in which innovation is reduced rather than increased, where far from helping small businesses to exploit their products we set them at a disadvantage against large businesses that can afford patent lawyers and legal action, and where the public interest as a whole suffers as license fees have to be paid for discoveries that would anyway be made." The Westminster parliamentary party will continue to press the Government on this issue as the Directive proceeds through its legislative stages. I hope this is helpful to you. Yours Rosalind Gill Liberal Democrat EP candidate for the East of England" -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

1 0

Re: Software Patents
by John Seago 25 May '04

25 May '04

Syd Hancock <syd(a)toufol.com> wrote: > Interesting to note that the responses are now over-taken by events. > Worth responding to perhaps? How have events overtaken the responses, (I live a rather insulated life), and what is the suggested response? I won't be back at my keyboard until around tea time. -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

2 1

Software Patents
by John Seago 25 May '04

25 May '04

Having yesterday, (in order to keep myself going for a full day), filled myself up with prescription painkillers, I made several mistakes, one of which was attributing the reply from the assistant to Andrew Duff to the Labour Party, when it was in fact from the Liberal Democrats. -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

1 0

FW: CONFERENCE - Mobile Computing - Sept 20, 2004 - London - ASC
by Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk 25 May '04

25 May '04

Hi Folks, The following was sent to the 'allstat' mailing list this morning. Maybe some readers will be involved in using Linux for this sort of thing, and may be interested in contributing or attending. Best wishes to all, Ted. -----FW: <40B2FCB0.6040301(a)essex.ac.uk>----- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 08:58:40 +0100 Sender: A UK-based worldwide e-mail broadcast system mailing list <allstat(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK> From: Randy Banks <randy(a)ESSEX.AC.UK> To: allstat(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: CONFERENCE - Mobile Computing - Sept 20, 2004 - London - ASC ************************************************************** *** an announcement from The Association for Survey Computing. *** Apologies for any cross-postings ************************************************************** MOBILE COMPUTING Thursday 30th September 2004 Imperial College, London FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS We are inviting contributions from organisations that are either developing or exploiting new technology in the field of mobile data collection. The platforms being used include PCs, PDAs, tablets, mobile telephones; running a variety of operating systems and using both off-the-shelf and bespoke software. Proposals for presentations should be sent in as soon as possible, and no later than 30th June. The conference will explore both the opportunities and limitations of the mobile mode with particular reference to: * Usability for both respondent and data collector * Sampling implications * Quality control * Limitations in the length of questionnaire and the size of the dataset * Communicating with the host * Cost and efficiency benefits Our audience will be seeking answers to a number of questions: * Will PDAs replace mobile telephones, or vice versa? * Can Microsoft dent Palm�s current supremacy � is there anyone else out there? * How well do interviewers and respondents cope with these technologies? * What�s the lifecycle of the hardware? * What are the compatibility issues surrounding the various hardware and software platforms? * Does the mode have any influence on the answers that respondents give? Synopses from potential speakers and expressions of interest from delegates and exhibitors should be addressed to: ASC Administrator: Diana Elder, ASC, PO Box 60, Chesham, Bucks HP5 3QH, UK Phone & Fax: +44 (0) 1494 793033, E-Mail: Admin {a} asc.org.uk The full programme, with the selected contributions, will be announced in July. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please reply to: Diana Elder, Administrator (admin(a)asc.org.uk) ASC, PO Box 60, Chesham, Bucks, UK HP5 3QH tel/fax: +44 (0)1494 793033 http://www.asc.org.uk This message has been sent on behalf the ASC by: Randy Banks (randy(a)essex.ac.uk) Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) University of Essex, Colchester, UK CO4 3SQ --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------End of forwarded message-------------------------

1 0

European Elections
by John Seago 25 May '04

25 May '04

So far I have had these: From UKIP: > Dear Mr Seago > Thank you for this email. Mr Titford has asked me to respond. > Please be re-assured that we will do all we can to oppose the patenting > of software ideas. > > However, to do this we will need YOUR help. We can only do this if we get > a massive vote on June 10th in the European elections. That would shake > the political elite to the core and make them realise that sovereignty > is not theirs to give away. Which has the benefit of being brief, concise, and probably sincere. -- This from the conservatives: "Dear Mr Seago, Thank you for your email. The European Commission published a draft Directive in February of last year as it become increasingly clear that European law on patenting software needed to be clarified. The aim of the Directive is to set out and defend the status quo in Europe following changes to the patent system in the USA and also planned for Japan. There is a clear intention across the EU Member States to see that Europe does not follow the USA and Japan in allowing widespread patent availability for software and business methods. Copyright will remain the principal method of protecting intellectual property in these cases. Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament supported the general line that the Commission took. This builds on and clarifies the existing patent law across the European Union and makes it clear that only software which forms part of a technological process will be patentable. This will allow patents to be provided for genuine technical inventions and stimulate European economic development in areas of economic strength like mobile telephony, digital television and computer controlled machine tools to name just a few possibilities. Such an approach would be compatible with national patent laws in the Member States and international treaties including TRIPS. The Directive originally proposed by the Commission set a fair test for software (deciding whether it has a technical effect) before authorising a patent. Under their proposal, any technical invention in a field outside software could have been patented and it did not make sense for technical inventions, which happened to use computers to be excluded from the system. Conservatives supported the Commission's proposal because we believe that codification of the existing position would also have avoided raising complicated issues of the validity of existing patents across Europe or allowing current unpatentable technologies to claim new patents. This would have allowed European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty as to their legal position. It would also have reduced the pressure from companies holding permissive American software patents that wished to gain an extension of their patent rights in Europe. We did, however, support a number of amendments to clarify the text and ensure that generic software patents were specifically excluded. The European Parliament voted on the Commission's proposal at the end of last year. It approved the principle of a clarifying directive by a substantial majority, thus moving the proposal to its next stage of negotiations between the EU Member Governments (Council) and the European Commission. The political objectives of providing the EU with a patent regime that explicitly excluded software and business processing was clearly established. However the Parliament also approved a wide range of amendments to the proposal, with the laudable intention of ensuring that patents would only be available for inventions incorporating software as party of a technical contribution. However many of these amendments would render the Directive completely unworkable and greatly restrict the scope of the original proposal. It is important to recognise that this Directive is intended to clarify the existing EU patents regime, and is not, of itself a free-standing piece of legislation. Many of the amendments would introduce new concepts into the law covering all patents and also extend patent restrictions to new ranges of products where innovations can quite justifiably, be protected at the moment. The Directive has now moved to the Council where the Governments of the Member States are amending it. Their negotiations are confidential but they are expected to propose a text close to the position which the European Commission bought forward originally and similar to the pragmatic approach which Conservatives support. We will continue to press the Commission and Council to produce a revised proposal that will achieve its political objectives, be fully compatible with existing patent law, and provide a clearly understood regime for inventions. In the next Parliament, we will not hesitate to propose further amendments that will safeguard Europe's approach to generic software patents. I hope this is helpful, Yours sincerely, Richard N" -- Having sent me a Microsoft® attachment the Labour party then sent me this: "I am convinced of the need for EU legislation in this area. Otherwise there will be an unstoppable drift towards the patenting of computer software, as there is in the USA. Many small and medium-sized firms in the East of England have told me of their concern that patenting will restrict their ability to write new and better software without infringing the rules. But, at the same time, SMEs will benefit if the proposed Directive succeeds in establishing clear ground rules. A uniform approach across the EU will save companies time and money in protecting their intellectual property in computer engineering and improve legal certainty. However, MEPs also voted to limit the scope of the legislation to affect new inventions only. The Parliament also revised the Commission's definitions of computer implemented inventions to try to protect the legitimate interests of individual software writers and small firms. On a Liberal initiative, a grace period of six months is proposed to allow market testing before the filing of a patent application. Crucially, the Parliament supported amendments to ensure that patent law cannot override interoperability of systems. In this complex area of legislation the EU is right to act with caution. It has been difficult to strike a balance between the need for license fees on the one hand and the imperative for competition on the other. The European software industry needs a better patent system than the out-dated one we have now if it is to be helped to remain creative. Many thousands of jobs in the East of England would be affected by a heavy-handed approach to software patenting. Cambridge is Europe's biggest cluster of the software industry, so the issue is of European as well as local importance. This law will help the smart innovation for which our region is world renowned. I will be working to ensure that nothing will be patentable in the future that is not patentable now. Patents must only be available for things that make a technical contribution to a true invention. And any EU legislation must be compatible with our international agreements. The draft proposal is now in the hands of the Council of Ministers who are certain to seek to modify the Parliament's position in the direction of the Commission's initial proposal. Once the Council has adopted its common position the proposal will pass back to the Parliament for a second reading, before its final adoption, probably in September." -- Sid's suggestion that letters be written does have the effect that it costs them money to send a reply, however the above evidence of a prepared documents indicates that differing replies are unlikely. Further it is going to cost you, I think you may have to write to at least 30 Candidates. The main point is to make it an issue. As there is already a prepared document it would seem to me that it has already been marked up as 'an issue'. A non-stop stream of emails raising the matter will reinforce the opinion that it is an issue which a section of the voters are exercised by. -- John Seago Linux User #219566 (http://counter.li.org)

3 2

ATX case
by Joe Button 25 May '04

25 May '04

Hi. I've got most of the bits of a new PC kicking about, so I thought I'd stick them together and see what happened. I think the only thing I'm missing is a case - don't suppose anyone's got one spare, or knows where I could pick one up dirt cheap? Ta.

6 8

newbie wants to install libraries
by Parker, Bruce 24 May '04

24 May '04

Hello - I am a newcomer to linux (mandrake) and I am coding in C++. I am trying to get a comfortable setup together with a nice ide (anjuta) and a gui library (wxWindows using gtk). It is proving very tiresome. So far I have gathered that to get anjuta working and wxWindows I need recent versions of gtk (2.4.0). To install this however I need a recent version of Pango(whatever that is). To install Pango I need a recent versio of GLib (whatever that is). So I am trying to install GLib. So I download it, unzip it and tar it so that I have a glib-2.4.0 directory. I go inside it and do the usual: ./configure make make install (as root) And all is well. Only I notice that in /usr/include there remains an old directory called glib-2.0 and no newer 2.4.0 one. Now when I do the same with Pango the configure script tells me it finds only an old version of glib. I don't know how it works that out. So either the 2.4.0 hasn't installed or its presence is not felt by pango. The pango configure script suggests playing around with PKG_CONFIG (an apparently empty variable) to help pango find the version... At this point I do no know what to do, I have read and reread all the docs and looked at the configure script. Can someone help please as it is driving me mad - either directly or can you recommend somewhere on the web where that people love to help with problems like this? Thanks. Bruce

4 3