FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-02-2009, 07:00 PM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Mon, Mar 02 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:


> Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are
> operating legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his
> software distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the
> opinion that there is no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is
> of the opinion that there IS an impediment. It is not that Schilling
> recognizes the impediment and refuses to clear it, it is that he does
> not believe that there is one. Thus both sides are to a large extent
> on the same page (wanting to distribute and to do so without legal
> impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing out
> the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no
> impediment.

That assumes a priori that Debian's position is wrong, and that
there is no legal impediments to distributing upstream cdtools. How
about countenancing the view that there could actually be a legal
issue, as Debian thinks there is?

An attempt at mediation that starts from such a biased stance is
unlikely to succeed.

manoj
--
At no time is freedom of speech more precious than when a man hits his
thumb with a hammer. -- Marshall Lumsden
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 07:38 PM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
>legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
>distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there is
>no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is of the opinion that there IS
>an impediment. It is not that Schilling recognizes the impediment and refuses
>to clear it, it is that he does not believe that there is one. Thus both sides

Well several lawyers have been asked for legal advise.

The Sun legal department did a full legal review of the cdrtools source
bewteen August 2008 and October 2008. No problem was found.

A German lawyer who is specialized on OpenSOurce hast been asked and he also
does not see a problem.

Eben Moglen has been asked and he also did see no problem.

Note that any laywer as a first reply confirms that the claim from the former
Debian package maintainer "Eduard Bloch" who initiated the attacks against me
and my software in May 2004 is complete nonsense. There is of course no problem
to use a CDDL licensed build system to compile a GPLd project.

For the rest of claims seen in the net, it is important to understand that you
need to find a single interpratation of the GPL that is not in conflict with

- The Copyright

- The OpenSource definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

- and that does not make OSS distributions illegal

All theories from people who claim that there is a problem with the original
cdrtools I did see, are either in conflict with the Copyright law, would make
the GPL a clearly nonfree license acording to http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
or would disallow to distribute e.g. Linux together with X.

The GPL is a "work" based license (see Copyright law
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html) and with a single exception,
the rules of the GPL end at the "work limit". The single exception is that
if you combine a GPLd work with an independent work under a different license,
you need to distribute "complete source" in case you distribute binaries.

If you did try to disallow GPLd programs to link against independent non-GPL
libraries, you would make _any_ GPLd program undistributable in binary form.


>without legal impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing
>out the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no impediment.
>(Note that the chances of any legal action being taken by anyone with respect
>to cdrtools is miniscule. So it is not fear that stands in the way, but a
>"legal quibble".

There is a high risk that people, who are involved with distributing the fork,
will be sued. There is no risk to distribute the original software.



>> Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
>> each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
>> just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
>> can never forsee all those quirks.

>Look I never said that maintaining is easy. It is not. And
>Schilling has proven himself willing to do it, to buy "all kinds of scsi
>burners" or get ahold of them, and make it work. That is worth a HUGE amount.

Let me add that Debian did verify that nobody is willing and able to fix the
bugs in wodim or genisoimage.



>> And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
>> from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
>> stone is just wasted.

>Well, I think there is the problem. This has come down to personal issues, not
>legal or technical. Everyone is so dug into their positions that they simply
>spend time lobbing grenades at each other, rather then trying to work through
>the problem. Yes, Schilling is "difficult" but by now, so is Debian. The
>amount of childish vituperation that has been seen in this discussion mostly
>but not all coming from the Debian side is pretty disgusting.

The whole dispute has been initated by a former Debian package maintainer named
"Eduard Bloch". This person created a lot of FUD and personal offense under the
name "Debian", he stopped all activitied on the fork on May 6th 2007 and sice
then advtertizes for nerolinux.

The incorrect clains against me and my software intruduced by "Eduard Bloch"
are still distributed by Debian. The current state of "Eduard Bloch" at Debian
is "suspended". Isn't the party that initiated the dispute responsible for
apologizing for creating the dispute?

In any case, the original cdrtools is perfectly free software

- cdrecord is 100% CDDL

- cdda2wav is 100% CDDL and uses an independent library under LGPL

- readcd is 100% CDDL

- rscsi is 100% CDDK

- scgcheck is 100% CDDL

- scgskeleton is 100% CDDL

- mkisofs is 100% GPL and uses independent libraries under CDDL

It is obvious that the people who are responsible for the fact that Debian
distributes "wodim" instead of cdrecord are not interested in legal facts as
cdrecord is 100% CDDL.

It has been proven by many people that wodim is full of bugs and in case that
Debian continues to distribute wodim, Debian ignores the demands from Debian
users and the legal problems in the fork. It is time for Debian to move in
order to verify that Debian is still supporting OpenSource.

When will the state of "Eduard Bloch" be changed from "suspended" to "thrown
out"? This would not harm Debian as he does not do any work, but it would
indicate that Debian as a project is still part of the OSS community.



Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 07:55 PM
Russell Coker
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Since the release of Lenny, I have installed arround 60 Workstaions, but
> > making tararchives of the original installation *and *reinstalled *Lenny
> > from scratch, using the first binary DVD and the rest over Net.
> >
> > Nearly 80% of all Workstations do not work properly.
>
> Maybe you should start to test Debian-Testing from time to time and report
> bugs if something doesn't work for you? Just complaining *after* a release
> isn't really helpful.

Bernd, I (with my DD or upstream developer hat on) understand your sentiment.
But I also (with my consultant or end-user hat on) find it impossible to
implement.

If I was running a large scale IT environment (say 1000+ users) then I would
assign an increasing portion of the help-desk people to run testing as the
release became closer and I would allow some of the user-base to run testing
when the release was really close. Then after the release I would slowly
increase the number of people running the new release so that bugs could be
identified and fixed. If a bug hit the 1% of the user-base who were most
adventurous and demanding of new versions then it wouldn't be so bad.

But however I'm not running a large IT environment and I don't have the
resources for such things. Sometimes I do the upgrade after the release and
just have to deal with some bugs.

That said my results from upgrading to Lenny have been a lot more positive
than Michelle reported.

--
russell@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 07:56 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Le lundi 02 mars 2009 * 09:59 -0800, Bill Unruh a écrit :
> without legal impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing
> out the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no impediment.

What you mean is: “Both sides should agree that Jörg Schilling is
right”. How do you expect anyone else than Schilling himself to buy
that?

> (Note that the chances of any legal action being taken by anyone with respect
> to cdrtools is miniscule. So it is not fear that stands in the way, but a
> "legal quibble".

Jörg Schilling has repeatedly threatened to take legal action, and this
is precisely the reason that led to renaming cdrtools to cdrkit.
Actually, even if we were to switch back to cdrtools as upstream source,
we would still be distributing it under the cdrkit name, otherwise we
couldn’t patch it without calling for Lord Schilling’s wrath.

> Well, I think there is the problem. This has come down to personal issues, not
> legal or technical. Everyone is so dug into their positions that they simply
> spend time lobbing grenades at each other, rather then trying to work through
> the problem. Yes, Schilling is "difficult" but by now, so is Debian. The
> amount of childish vituperation that has been seen in this discussion mostly
> but not all coming from the Debian side is pretty disgusting.

I think the Debian members have all been pretty clear on what is asked
to work with the project. Some of us are used to deal with upstream
developers behaving like assholes, so that is not the problem. The
problem is that we cannot distribute cdrecord binaries. Full stop. End
of story. Bye bye.

The same goes for Gentoo. For Fedora. For OpenSUSE, Mandriva and Ubuntu.
Man, so many “difficult” distributors, all refusing to cooperate, and
distributing cdrkit instead! Disgusting.

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 03-02-2009, 08:12 PM
Russell Coker
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> If Red Hat wants to pay someone to put up with it, that's their call; it's
> a lot easier to be polite in the face of an unending stream of personal
> abuse if you're getting a paycheck for doing it.

If Red Hat was to do this, then it would not be the only case of Red Hat
having a package that Debian users desire. From time to time I find a
situation where a CentOS kernel works better than a Debian kernel, while I
agree that it's ideal to try and get the problem in Debian fixed I also have
a need to get machines working and sometimes can't invest the necessary
amount of time.

There is the "alien" program to convert an RPM to a .deb. Is there a way of
also automatically tracking the upstream (Fedora or CentOS) version of the
package and downloading a new version (with signature checks) when it becomes
available?

--
russell@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 08:15 PM
Don Armstrong
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> Bernd, I (with my DD or upstream developer hat on) understand your
> sentiment. But I also (with my consultant or end-user hat on) find
> it impossible to implement.

It's not that it's impossible to implement, it's just that the
resources that could implement it are being expended elsewhere.

If the deployers of the software don't have the resources to test the
software in their deployment, the unfortunate reality is that no one
else is likely to have the resources to test it either. A decision has
to be made to either expend the resources in testing before the
release, or expend resources in living with or fixing the bugs after
the release. Blaming others for the reality of that decision is
counter-productive, and wastes resources that could be better spent
testing for future releases or helping to get the bugs fixed.


Don Armstrong

--
A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 09:23 PM
Bernd Schubert
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Monday 02 March 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Since the release of Lenny, I have installed arround 60 Workstaions,
> > > but making tararchives of the original installation *and *reinstalled
> > > *Lenny from scratch, using the first binary DVD and the rest over Net.
> > >
> > > Nearly 80% of all Workstations do not work properly.
> >
> > Maybe you should start to test Debian-Testing from time to time and
> > report bugs if something doesn't work for you? Just complaining *after* a
> > release isn't really helpful.
>
> Bernd, I (with my DD or upstream developer hat on) understand your
> sentiment. But I also (with my consultant or end-user hat on) find it
> impossible to implement.

You don't have any chroots, virtual machines and you don't run Sid at home?

>
> If I was running a large scale IT environment (say 1000+ users) then I
> would assign an increasing portion of the help-desk people to run testing
> as the release became closer and I would allow some of the user-base to run
> testing when the release was really close. Then after the release I would
> slowly increase the number of people running the new release so that bugs
> could be identified and fixed. If a bug hit the 1% of the user-base who
> were most adventurous and demanding of new versions then it wouldn't be so
> bad.

Well, Michelle upgraded over 50 machines. At university I was admin of of
group of also that number. We had chroots (for old-stable, testing and sid).
Some users sometimes had to use one or another chroot to get some programs
running. Since that also requires the basic libs are working, it is at least a
basic test. On upgrades we always tried to migrate as few as possible
workstations first (of course easy, when you have a diskless environment as we
had/have). So when on the first system not everything runs smoothly we never
would have upgraded the 2nd system.

>
> But however I'm not running a large IT environment and I don't have the
> resources for such things. Sometimes I do the upgrade after the release
> and just have to deal with some bugs.

I don't know, maintaining a testing chroot is really simple, since you don't
need to adjust a single configuration file within the chroot. Testing some
software components from time there is also easy then.


Cheers,
Bernd


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 09:24 PM
Bill Unruh
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:


On Mon, Mar 02 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:



Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are
operating legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his
software distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the
opinion that there is no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is
of the opinion that there IS an impediment. It is not that Schilling
recognizes the impediment and refuses to clear it, it is that he does
not believe that there is one. Thus both sides are to a large extent
on the same page (wanting to distribute and to do so without legal
impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing out
the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no
impediment.


That assumes a priori that Debian's position is wrong, and that
there is no legal impediments to distributing upstream cdtools. How
about countenancing the view that there could actually be a legal
issue, as Debian thinks there is?


Yee gads, no it does not. Yes, debian sees a legal issue ( just what its depth
is neither I not Debian I suspect really knows). All I am saying is that the
two sides are NOT far apart on their goals. Both would like to distribute
cdrtools, both want it to be open source and to allow people to make changes.
Schilling believes that these conditions are already met, Debian does not.
Debian believes that with the current license situation, they cannot
distribute the binary code more mkisofs due to the dual CDDL(libscg)
GPL(mkisofs) licensing of components of the binary.

Complicating the situation is that US copyright law contains the concept of
derivative work ( a very vague term) while apparently Germal law does not.

"Clearing out the underbrush" could well involve changes to the licensing, or
clarification of the licensing. I am certainly not a sufficient expert in
World copyright law to know exactly what it would take, nor I suspect are you.
That there is a dispute is clear. That the dispute is unsolvable is far from
clear to me.



An attempt at mediation that starts from such a biased stance is
unlikely to succeed.


And any approach in which each side assumes that mediation will always fail,
and that reads all proposals as enemy proposals will probably also fail. If
you want this to be and remain like Northern Ireland or Palestine, I certainly
cannot stop you. But I would suggest that the only outcome of that approach is
to harm the users of Debian and of cdrtools, who should be both sides primary
concern.

Alternatively both sides could agree on those areas in which they do agree (
which I would suggest is a lot) and then see if the remaining issues can be
solved.

Note that regarding the legal issues, it would really be helpful if both sides
make their correspondence with Moglen public, so that we can see what the
legal issues that divide the two sides really are. Or maybe even more
helpfully, what the minimum changes are required to come to agreement.






manoj



--
William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | unruh@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-02-2009, 09:36 PM
Stephen Gran
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

This one time, at band camp, Bill Unruh said:
> All I am saying is that the two sides are NOT far apart on their
> goals. Both would like to distribute cdrtools, both want it to be open
> source and to allow people to make changes.

That may have been true in 2004. I doubt it is any longer. If I was
one of the maintainers of this fork, I would have zero incentive to want
to work with JS any more.

Now please, can we let this thread die? I'm sure there's lots more arm
chair lawyering and moaning that could be done about how we don't all
play nicely together, but we're just rehashing the same old nonsense.

End of topic for me.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,'`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sgran@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Old 03-02-2009, 09:41 PM
Bill Unruh
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Again, let us separate out the ill feelings from the issues under dispute. I
realise that it is very hard to forget history but since both sides believe
that it is the user that is most important, that is whom we should keep our
attention on.

Schilling here says that all of cdrtools, except mkisofs are released under
the CDDL. I assume that Debian does not have any particular legal issue with
distributing something which is purely CDDL licensed. They may have their
preferences that things be GPL licensed but are willing to live with something
that is CDDL licensed.

Thus, is it correct that the issue centers around mkisofs, a program which is
under the GPL2 license and is linked with libscg, a CDDL licensed library? Is
this where the dispute lies?

If so, exactly what is the nature of the legal (as opposed to personal)
disagreement?
Schilling has made clear that he does not believe there to be any legal

impediment to the distribution of the software. Debian has made clear that
they believe that there is such an impediment. What, in as few words as
possible, is the impediment?





On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:


Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:


Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there is
no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is of the opinion that there IS
an impediment. It is not that Schilling recognizes the impediment and refuses
to clear it, it is that he does not believe that there is one. Thus both sides


Well several lawyers have been asked for legal advise.

The Sun legal department did a full legal review of the cdrtools source
bewteen August 2008 and October 2008. No problem was found.

A German lawyer who is specialized on OpenSOurce hast been asked and he also
does not see a problem.

Eben Moglen has been asked and he also did see no problem.

Note that any laywer as a first reply confirms that the claim from the former
Debian package maintainer "Eduard Bloch" who initiated the attacks against me
and my software in May 2004 is complete nonsense. There is of course no problem
to use a CDDL licensed build system to compile a GPLd project.

For the rest of claims seen in the net, it is important to understand that you
need to find a single interpratation of the GPL that is not in conflict with

- The Copyright

- The OpenSource definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

- and that does not make OSS distributions illegal

All theories from people who claim that there is a problem with the original
cdrtools I did see, are either in conflict with the Copyright law, would make
the GPL a clearly nonfree license acording to http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
or would disallow to distribute e.g. Linux together with X.

The GPL is a "work" based license (see Copyright law
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html) and with a single exception,
the rules of the GPL end at the "work limit". The single exception is that
if you combine a GPLd work with an independent work under a different license,
you need to distribute "complete source" in case you distribute binaries.

If you did try to disallow GPLd programs to link against independent non-GPL
libraries, you would make _any_ GPLd program undistributable in binary form.



without legal impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing
out the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no impediment.
(Note that the chances of any legal action being taken by anyone with respect
to cdrtools is miniscule. So it is not fear that stands in the way, but a
"legal quibble".


There is a high risk that people, who are involved with distributing the fork,
will be sued. There is no risk to distribute the original software.




Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
can never forsee all those quirks.



Look I never said that maintaining is easy. It is not. And
Schilling has proven himself willing to do it, to buy "all kinds of scsi
burners" or get ahold of them, and make it work. That is worth a HUGE amount.


Let me add that Debian did verify that nobody is willing and able to fix the
bugs in wodim or genisoimage.




And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
stone is just wasted.



Well, I think there is the problem. This has come down to personal issues, not
legal or technical. Everyone is so dug into their positions that they simply
spend time lobbing grenades at each other, rather then trying to work through
the problem. Yes, Schilling is "difficult" but by now, so is Debian. The
amount of childish vituperation that has been seen in this discussion mostly
but not all coming from the Debian side is pretty disgusting.


The whole dispute has been initated by a former Debian package maintainer named
"Eduard Bloch". This person created a lot of FUD and personal offense under the
name "Debian", he stopped all activitied on the fork on May 6th 2007 and sice
then advtertizes for nerolinux.

The incorrect clains against me and my software intruduced by "Eduard Bloch"
are still distributed by Debian. The current state of "Eduard Bloch" at Debian
is "suspended". Isn't the party that initiated the dispute responsible for
apologizing for creating the dispute?

In any case, the original cdrtools is perfectly free software

- cdrecord is 100% CDDL

- cdda2wav is 100% CDDL and uses an independent library under LGPL

- readcd is 100% CDDL

- rscsi is 100% CDDK

- scgcheck is 100% CDDL

- scgskeleton is 100% CDDL

- mkisofs is 100% GPL and uses independent libraries under CDDL

It is obvious that the people who are responsible for the fact that Debian
distributes "wodim" instead of cdrecord are not interested in legal facts as
cdrecord is 100% CDDL.

It has been proven by many people that wodim is full of bugs and in case that
Debian continues to distribute wodim, Debian ignores the demands from Debian
users and the legal problems in the fork. It is time for Debian to move in
order to verify that Debian is still supporting OpenSource.

When will the state of "Eduard Bloch" be changed from "suspended" to "thrown
out"? This would not harm Debian as he does not do any work, but it would
indicate that Debian as a project is still part of the OSS community.



J�>



--
William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | unruh@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org