FSFE-IE October 2005

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

13 participants
29 discussions

slides from my recent ILUG talk
by Ciaran O'Riordan 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

If these are of interest to anyone: http://ciaran.compsoc.com/2005-11-22-dublin.mgp They're in MagicPoint format, so if you download that file, type mgp 2005-11-22-dublin.mgp and you get the slideshow. MagicPoint is packaged as "mgp" in Debian, and maybe in other distros. I also found a tool for making very basic html, but the slideshow is better. http://ciaran.compsoc.com/2005-11-22-dublin.html -- Ciarán O'Riordan, ___________/ Join the Fellowship of FSFE to http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _/ support the campaigns against software ___________________________/ patents and IPRED2 http://fsfe.org

1 0

Economist survey on intellectual property
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

The current issue of the Economist carries an extensive survey of IP issues, focused on patents and the IT industry. Most of it is available to subscibers only. Here is the lead article. * A market for ideas* Oct 20th 2005 The Economist www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5014990 *Intellectual-property protection can be good for the technology industry as well as for its customers, says Kenneth Cukier (interviewed here <http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5039850>). But it requires careful handling* “The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity’, excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.” /The Economist /may have put it rather strongly in 1851, but its disapproval of patents represented conventional wisdom at the time. A century earlier, Adam Smith had described them as necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly, and many other economists have since echoed his reservations. Patents amount to temporary monopolies on useful new inventions. In recent years intellectual property has received a lot more attention because ideas and innovations have become the most important resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials. As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets, up from around 40% in the early 1980s. “The economic product of the United States”, says Alan Greenspan, the chairman of America's Federal Reserve, has become “predominantly conceptual”. Intellectual property forms part of those conceptual assets. In information technology and telecoms in particular, the role of intellectual property has changed radically. What used to be the preserve of corporate lawyers and engineers in R&D labs has been speedily embraced by the boardroom. “Intellectual-asset management” now figures as a strategic business issue. In America alone, technology licensing revenue accounts for an estimated $45 billion annually; worldwide, the figure is around $100 billion and growing fast. Technology firms are seeking more patents, expanding their scope, licensing more, litigating more and overhauling their business models around intellectual property. Yet paradoxically, as some companies batten down the hatches, other firms have found ways of making money by opening up their treasure-chest of innovation and sharing it with others. The rise of open-source software is just one example. And a new breed of companies has appeared on the periphery of today's tech firms, acting as intellectual-property intermediaries and creating a market for ideas. *Mind the keep-out signs* At the same time, however, the legitimacy of many patents granted is in question as patent offices struggle with the huge increase in demand. Over the past decade the number of patent applications has nearly doubled and continues to climb. Much of that growth has been in the IT and telecoms field: in America alone, that sector's overall share of patents has increased from around 30% in 1990 to almost 40% today. Also climbing, alas, is the number of lawsuits over patent infringement, the cost of litigation, and the amount of money plaintiffs are winning. Meanwhile, emerging technology powerhouses such as China and India are competing to move up from lower-end work such as hardware manufacturing and software coding to more sophisticated projects requiring their own innovation. This could pose serious challenges to today's incumbents. The number of patents granted at China's patent office has trebled in the past four years alone. “Intellectual property has become more central to the industry,” says Greg Papadopoulos, chief technology officer of Sun Microsystems. “I don't know if that is a function of a mature industry, or simply a confused one.” *Licensed to make money* The facts and figures speak for themselves. IBM alone now earns over $1 billion annually from its intellectual-property portfolio. HP's revenue from licensing has quadrupled in less than three years, to over $200m this year. Microsoft is on course to file 3,000 patents this year, when in 1990 it received a mere five. Earlier this year it set up an entirely new corporate division to exchange its technology for cash or equity in start-up firms. Nokia has recently started licensing its technology to other firms and plans to do more. And some companies, such as ARM, a British firm that designs the blueprints for microchips used in wireless devices, do little other than create and sell intellectual property. According to a survey of business executives last year by McKinsey, a consultancy, 54% of companies saw growth in licensing of 10-50% between 2000 and 2002. Almost 75% of executives say they expect to buy as well as sell more licences over the next two to five years, and 43% expect a dramatic increase in their licensing revenue. And they think the market is still embryonic. “Many companies generate a lot of intellectual property and do not capture the value from it,” says Jay Jubas of McKinsey. The new predominance of intellectual property in technology industries is fed by a number of broader industry trends. First, IT and telecoms have become so complex that there is a greater willingness to accept the innovations of others. Gone are the days when vertically integrated firms handled every step of a product, from initial design to final sale. Now, a small army of specialist firms focus on narrow portions of technology, using intellectual-property rights to protect their inventions when they are licensed out. Second, as many new technologies quickly turn into commodities, firms increasingly rely on innovation to remain competitive. Yet the return on investment in R&D is short-lived because more people innovate at a far faster pace than before. That means margins have shrivelled, explains Ragu Gurumurthy of Adventis, an IT and telecoms consultancy. “How to recoup the cost of innovation? By licensing the technology,” he says. Third, customers are demanding “interoperability” and common standards rather than proprietary systems, which means different firms' technologies must work together smoothly. This often requires pooling patents or cross-licensing agreements. Fourth, generating intellectual property is less capital-intensive than other aspects of the IT businesses because it relies mainly on people rather than bricks, mortar and machinery. That makes it attractive to many start-up firms. Venture capitalists often demand that firms patent technology, both to block rivals and to have assets to sell in case the firm flounders. This was particularly apparent during the internet boom in 2000. “In addition to the dotcom bubble, we had a patent bubble,” says Mark Webbink of Red Hat, a firm that sells Linux, an open-source operating system. Companies cannot simply turn their back on what is happening in intellectual property. Even if they refuse to play the game, they may be unwittingly infringing someone else's patents because there are so many more of them around. Unless firms have patents of their own to assert so they can reach a cross-licensing agreement (often with money changing hands too), they will be in trouble. Thus many companies are acquiring large numbers of patents for purely defensive reasons, for use only to keep others' patent threats at bay. Legally, the intellectual-property system covers four areas: copyrights (used to protect artistic, musical or literary works); trademarks (for things like brands); patents (for inventions); and an ill-defined category of “trade secrets”, for practices that are kept confidential. The system provides legal protection against counterfeiters and copiers and is vital to many fields, such as biotechnology and nanotechnology. And it matters not only to companies: universities, too, have recently become big patent holders and licensers. In IT and telecoms, the area of intellectual property that is creating particular upheaval is patents (see article <http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5015083>). This is because patents confer a “negative right” to exclude others from using the same technique; yet information technology and telecommunications rely on “network effects”, meaning that as more people use a system, it becomes that much more useful. To make the most of such network effects, interoperability between different technologies is essential. This can be achieved either by a single standard set by a dominant firm (which tends to generate resistance from customers and competitors), or by using a mixture of different technologies, with the patent system providing legal protection for inventions. *The more the merrier* As the system of intellectual property evolves, the ethos seems to be that if a little is good, then more is better. That is to say, if some property rights on inventions are beneficial, then increasing those rights—in scope, strength or duration—will increase the benefits. But that is a large assumption. There is even a body of evidence to suggest it is flatly wrong. The technology industry faces the question of whether today's abundance of patents, rather than lubricating the gears of innovation, may be clogging them up. Already, businesses are having to negotiate with other firms in order to do basic things such as reading files from different proprietary formats; and the design of new technology products now involves lawyers as well as engineers. The proliferation of patents might prove a serious encumbrance to businesses, just as travellers along the Rhine in medieval Europe were slowed down by having to pay a toll at every castle. James Boyle, a legal scholar at Duke Law School in North Carolina, claims that the current increase in intellectual-property rights represents nothing less than a second “enclosure movement”. In the first enclosures, in 18th- and 19th-century Britain, the commons—open fields used by many, belonging to all, owned by none—were fenced in, and nearly all land became private property. By analogy, the granting of property rights on ideas, to the extent it is happening today, is plundering the intellectual commons of our public domain. Others see the expansion of intellectual-property rights as hugely beneficial, leading not only to more innovation but to more openness. The standard justification for the patent system is that it provides an incentive for innovation, allowing the inventor to reap rewards by protecting the work from imitators who would otherwise hitch a free ride on the investment. But that is a simplification. The initial intention was in fact to make inventions available to the public as well. Before the 18th century, innovations were mainly kept secret through trade guilds. Sometimes monarchs capriciously granted indefinite exclusive rights to someone they favoured. Intellectual-property law was meant to remedy this by requiring the invention to be vetted by experts, limiting the right to a set period and making knowledge more widely accessible through public disclosure. Its development was part of the drive towards democracy and capitalism and the abolition of royal privileges and monopolies. In principle, patents open up innovations in two ways. First, they confer only temporary rights; once patents expire or are abandoned, the intellectual property they are designed to protect passes into the public domain. Second, they require the details of the invention to be disclosed so they can be replicated. This permits follow-on innovation, which is essential for industrial progress. More recently, as the patent system has evolved, it has been seen to provide other benefits. It leads to a degree of economic specialisation that makes business more efficient. Patents are transferable assets, and by the early 20th century they had made it possible to separate the person who makes an invention from the one who commercialises it. This recognised the fact that someone who is good at coming up with ideas is not necessarily the best person to bring those ideas to market. Such specialisation is now so common that it is taken for granted. Semiconductors, the silicon chips that power digital devices, are typically designed by specialist firms that are good at engineering, but physically produced by other firms whose expertise lies in manufacturing. As the patent system has matured and licensing has become much more widespread, these transfers are turning business relationships on their head. Some economists argue that the growth of patent transactions is establishing a proper “market for technology”. The creation of any market takes time and trouble. When such an institution develops, those outside the system feel threatened by it and condemn it. Yet just as the banking system created a market for capital and the insurance industry created a market for risk, the growth of the patent system may be creating a market for innovation. This provides a sort of “liquidity” to knowledge that did not previously exist, argue Ashish Arora, Andrea Fosfuri and Alfonso Gambardella in their 2001 book, “Markets for Technology, the Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy”. Seen that way, the evolution of the patent system in IT and telecoms is simply part of a broader movement to create an institutional mechanism for the transfer of ideas to fuel economic progress. *Mutually assured destruction* That is the context in which commercial battles are taking place in the technology industry today. The convergence of IT and telecoms is forcing companies to work together in new ways in order both to protect and exchange their technology. “How do you create a marketplace for ideas in that converged marketplace?” asks David Kaefer, director of intellectual-property licensing at Microsoft. “That is really the big question. In the past, two parties would haggle over a pound of wheat. Today, they haggle over the patent of the week.” These markets for technology are expanding. For instance, 60% of technology and telecoms firms report an increase in licensing compared with the previous decade, and 70% report fewer obstacles to reaching such agreements, according to a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2004. “Intellectual property is the next asset class. Companies are creating a market,” says Eric Gillespie, the co-founder of ipIQ, one of the new crop of firms that are fuelling patent transactions. But when talking to executives in the technology firms themselves, the language you hear most often is that of “the arms race” and “mutually assured destruction”. Companies amass patents as much to defend themselves against attacks by their competitors as to protect their inventions. Many technology companies have recently championed reform of the patent system to deal with spuriously awarded patents, licensing extortion and massive lawsuits. “There is a broad recognition in the US that the patent system, if not reformed, will...begin to impede American competitiveness around the world,” says Bruce Sewell, general counsel of Intel, the world's biggest chipmaker. This survey will argue that, despite such adjustment problems, the huge changes in intellectual property currently taking place in the IT sector will in time produce more efficient markets. But what do the IT firms themselves make of it all?

1 0

Opening Doors & Smashing Windows: Alternative Measures for Funding Software Development
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

The Center for Economic and Policy Research has just released the paper, "Opening Doors and Smashing Windows: Alternative Measures for Funding Software Development" by Dean Baker, CEPR economist and Co-Director. This paper examines the ways in which copyrights and patents (intellectual property rights) lead to inefficiency and waste, and outlines alternative mechanisms for supporting software development. The paper can be accessed at: http://www.cepr.net/publications/windows_2005_10.pdf. Kathryn Bogel E-mail: bogel(a)cepr.net Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-5380 x111 Fax (202) 588-1356 _www.cepr.net <http://www.cepr.net/>_ ______________________________________________ Upd-discuss mailing list Upd-discuss(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss

1 0

These may be on the radar
by Paul O'Malley 23 Oct '05

23 Oct '05

Hi, this group may be on the radar, http://www.europeansoftware.org/index.html Somehow I would dispute their "European" flag, with members from the Russia, South Africa and the US. Regards, Paul O'Malley

1 0

Notice about the lack of facilities at the ILUG AGM
by Paul O'Malley 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

Just a quick note that if you are attending Ciaran's talk tomorrow there are no bathroom facilities at the time or writing, the staff in the ICS got into a terrible flap at about 3pm today trying to get a plumber. They are open in the am tomorrow so it is possible but unlikely that it will be resolved by Saturday afternoon. Regards. Paul

1 0

ISA representative in print and on radio
by Ben North 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

At a recent meeting we were trying to remember names of journalists who had covered the swpat issue, and Malcolm then did some research. One of the articles he came up included a quote from > Bernadette Cullinan, chairwoman of the ISA, ("an important method of > promoting innovation in the sector was through protecting > intellectual property rights"). This is most likely the same person who was on RTE Morning Ireland on the morning of the vote. I posted at the time to fsfe-ie: > The Morning Ireland show this morning had another piece on the swpat > directive, and as when they've covered the issue previously, it was > fairly one-sided. They had a representative of the Irish Software > Association on, Bernadette (can't recall surname) I think, who was given > the opportunity to repeat the usual propaganda. The interviewer did > raise the view that small businesses would be harmed, but the ISA rep > then just said she disagreed strongly and claimed to represent > businesses of all sizes. The ISA rep also started off by claiming that > the directive just harmonised patent application practices and > appplication and enforcement procedures, which is a line I've seen more > in the past week or two. The interview was pretty soft, and introduced > ISA rep by saying that she was very strongly in one camp --- doesn't > this mean that they really should have found someone from the other camp > to talk to as well? [http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2005-July/002106.html dated 20050706]

1 0

Leaders Call Community to Show Opposition to Software Patents
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 20 Oct '05

20 Oct '05

From Seth Johnson via A2K list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FOSS luminaries call to worldwide vote against software patents Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:08:18 +0200 From: "Florian Mueller" <florian.mueller(a)nosoftwarepatents.com> French version: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=678 German version: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=677 FREE AND OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE LUMINARIES CALL ON WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY TO VOTE AGAINST SOFTWARE PATENTS IN THE "EUROPEAN OF THE YEAR 2005" INTERNET POLL Richard Stallman, Tim O'Reilly, Alan Cox, Rasmus Lerdorf and Monty Widenius endorse Florian Mueller's candidacy "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce" Brussels (20 October 2005) -- A group of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) celebrities has weighed in on the election of the "European of the Year 2005" by calling on "software developers and users around the globe" to vote for Florian Mueller, the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, in a public online poll. The illustrious consortium consists of--in alphabetical order of last name -- Alan Cox, Red Hat Fellow and Linux kernel maintainer; Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of the PHP programming language; Tim O'Reilly, book publisher and conference organizer; Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation (who in 1984 began the work that produced today's popular GNU/Linux operating system); and Monty Widenius, creator of the MySQL database. In a NoSoftwarePatents press release, the community leaders today expressed their support for the voting recommendations that NoSoftwarePatents.com has published in more than a dozen languages: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/vote.html Participants in the poll are required to make a choice in each of ten categories, and the voting list provided by NoSoftwarePatents.com explains the role that various candidates played in the software patent debate so that voters can reward the opponents of software patents and penalize pro-patent politicians. On 22 September, Florian Mueller was nominated for the most prestigious award in EU politics, the "EV50 Europeans of the Year". The jury thereby recognized his political efforts against a legislative proposal that in his opinion would have legalized software patents in Europe. The European Parliament rejected the bill on 6 July by a landslide of 648-32 votes. Mueller, who stressed that he owes this nomination "to our entire community and especially to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)", is credited with founding a multilingual campaign website, speaking out in the media and at public events, and lobbying MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) as well as governments and parliaments in select EU member states. The European Voice, a major EU-focused weekly, is now conducting an Internet poll in which Mueller runs against such famous contenders as U2 frontman Bono, Bob Geldof, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, and political leaders including British prime minister Tony Blair, the outgoing German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Schroeder's successor designate Angela Merkel. The poll is open to the worldwide public until 11 November. Mueller's endorsers pointed out that the FOSS community has played a particularly active role in the fight against software patents, but that software patents "threaten us all because they don't discriminate based on programming language, operating system, or licensing model". The group is "disconcerted by early reports" that the EU is now looking at alternative ways of giving software patents a stronger legal basis in Europe, such as an EU community patent regulation. The press release underscored the fact that "this is a campaign for a cause, not for a person": People are asked to vote for Mueller "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce". The NoSoftwarePatents.com label is right next to Mueller's name on the ballot (http://www.ev50.com/poll). The endorsement furthermore stated: "Some other nominees also stand for valid concerns and noble causes. However, those issues and individuals have already received a lot of coverage in the mass media, while the implications of software patents to the whole world, including developing countries, still require much more public awareness. In the sense that software patents monopolize mental steps, they are also a human rights issue." Mueller is confident that he can win the title of the "European of the Year" against his famous competitors in the light of the "indisputable e-campaigning power of the anti-software patent movement". In addition to a campaign statement and voting recommendations, the website provides an email form that allows supporters to spread the information (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/notify.html), and banners (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/banners.html). The two main slogans of the electoral campaign are "Vote against software patents" and "Vote for your right to program". Should he win the popular vote, Mueller said that "everyone is a winner". He promised "to donate the Microsoft-sponsored prize money to the FFII", without which he says he "probably wouldn't have become involved, let alone succeeded, in this political battle". The EV50 winners will be announced on 29 November. A gala evening at the Palais d'Egmont in Brussels will be hosted by former European Parliament President Pat Cox, who was hired by US corporations to lobby for software patents in the build-up to the 6 July vote. The EV50 awards are supported by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. Sponsors include PR and lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller, software maker Microsoft Corporation (a major owner and backer of software patents), and pharmaceutical giant Novartis. The European Voice is a publication of the Economist group. NOTE: Florian Mueller founded the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign in 2004 with the support of three corporate sponsors (1&1, Red Hat, MySQL AB), and managed it until March of 2005. He then gave his website to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), the leading European pressure group that opposes the patentability of computer programs. CONTACT INFORMATION Florian Mueller florian.mueller(a)nosoftwarepatents.com _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

1 0

IPRED2 saga
by Daithí Mac Síthigh 20 Oct '05

20 Oct '05

Here's what little was said in the Dáil committee: "On the matter of deferred documents there is one proposal for deferral. Proposal 4.1, COM (2005) 276, is for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the other Department with an interest is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There are two parts to this proposal and the secretariat has, to date, received a note that concerns only the proposed framework decision. The Department has indicated that an additional note would be provided in regard to the proposed directive concerning criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is proposed to defer consideration of this proposal until the additional information note is received by the Department. Is that agreed? Agreed." http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=SCR20051006.xml&Node=H2#H2 Daithí

4 3

IFSO Wiki updates
by IfsoWiki＠ifso.ie 19 Oct '05

19 Oct '05

* CiaranOriordan CiaranOriordanWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 A UN document about why developing nations should use free software. The forewo [http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ Ciaran O'Riordan's homepage] + == Interesting documents == + + A UN document about why developing nations should use free software. The foreword is by Stallman. + http://www.iosn.net/government/foss-government-primer/foss-govt-policy.pdf + URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/CiaranOriordan?action=diff * GlennStrong LocalBadContentWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 Scum. http://www.sexy-maidens.info http://www.7500hk.org.cn http://big-boobs.find-here.etowns.org/fat-women-in-thongs.htm + http://xwoolwl.poes.net URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/LocalBadContent?action=diff * GlennStrong CopyrightConsultationWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 The European Commission currently have an open consultation on the review of EU legislation on copyright and related rights. It was agreed at the IFSO meeting on Tuesday, that IFSO will respond to the consultation on two specific issues which fall within the IFSO remit. The deadline is 31.10.2004. - Background: + Background: The Commission takes the copyright Directive as its benchmark, which is the most recent and also the most horizontal measure in the field of copyright, reviews four earlier Directives: Software Directive (1991); Rental Right Directive (1992); Term Directive (1993); Database Directive (1996) and compares these with the copyright Directive. Read about the consultation at: @@ -20, +20 @@ 1. The Irish Free Software Organisation is an independent organisation that promotes and defends free software in Ireland. More information on IFSO can be found at http://www.ifso.ie/ - 2. We would first like to state that we find the scope of the consultation process too narrow. The current legal framework for + 2. We would first like to state that we find the scope of the consultation process too narrow. The current legal framework for - copyright in Europe has many problems that are not addressed by the European Commission Staff Working Paper. We feel that the legal + copyright in Europe has many problems that are not addressed by the European Commission Staff Working Paper. We feel that the legal framework for copyright would be best reconsidered from first principles. 3. With respect to the Commission Staff Working Paper, we would like to comment on two proposals which impact directly on the work of free @@ -32, +32 @@ ... URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/CopyrightConsultation?action=diff * GlennStrong EuropeanCompaniesAgainstSoftwarePatentsWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 Below is a list of European comanies who do not support the patenting of software ideas. Each company is listed with a contact name for verification (but no contact details). To add your company to this list please email committee(a)ifso.ie * IrishCompaniesAgainstSoftwarePatents - * UkCompaniesAgainstSoftwarePatents + * UkCompaniesAgainstSoftwarePatents - - == This problem is described there so so ... == - [http://xwoolwl.poes.net/fisting/ | gay and hardcoreand fisting][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pantyhose/ | wet sticky panties][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/fat/ | adult photos fat mature][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/gay/ | hot gay twins][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/black/ | interracial dating ebony women][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/webcam/ | adult web cam communities][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/creampie/ | black creampies internal, cumshots][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/rape/ | tiny teens forced to fuck][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/cumshot/ | free info on how to give a blow job][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/asian/ | creamy asian pussy picture gallerie][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/toons/ | anime vs manga][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/zoo/ | live animal porn][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pregnant/ | nude pics free pregnant women pic][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/celebrity/ | mr pink nude celebrity fakes][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/hairy/ | atk hairy + josie][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/lesbians/ | free strapon movies lesbian][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/amateurs/ | amateur teen porn gallery galleries][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/bizarre/ | bizarre accidents][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pussy/ | free indian hairy pussy] - URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/EuropeanCompaniesAgainstSoftwarePatents… * GlennStrong AgmPlanWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 '''Important: East Theatre is not open to the public. Therefore we will meet at 18.30 in the Duke on Duke St. and will leave together at 19.00 sharp to walk to East Theatre. Alternatively, meet us at the entrance to East Theatre at 19.00.''' - Afterwards we will go for a pizza at Milano's on Dawson St (at own cost). Table is booked for 21.30 (can't get any earlier, there's two "sittings" in an evening). Yes to dinner: Malcolm, Glenn, Teresa, David C., Éibhear, Ben, David O'C., Ryan. '''Please email teresahackett at eircom.net if you wish to join us'''. + Afterwards we will go for a pizza at Milano's on Dawson St (at own cost). Table is booked for 21.30 (can't get any earlier, there's two "sittings" in an evening). Yes to dinner: Malcolm, Glenn, Teresa, David C., Éibhear, Ben, David O'C., Ryan. '''Please email teresahackett at eircom.net if you wish to join us'''. ---- 1. DRAFT Agenda @@ -21, +21 @@ '''1. DRAFT Agenda''' - Agenda items refer to IFSO [http://www.ifso.ie/documents/constitution.html constitution] + Agenda items refer to IFSO [http://www.ifso.ie/documents/constitution.html constitution] 1. Opening and announcements @@ -32, +32 @@ 4. Agreement on voting procedures ... URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/AgmPlan?action=diff * GlennStrong WikiWikiWebWed, 19 Oct 2005 07:00:03 -0000 ##language:en - The [wiki:Wiki:FrontPage first ever wiki site] was founded in 1994 as an automated supplement to the Wiki:PortlandPatternRepository. The site was immediately popular within the pattern community, largely due to the newness of the internet and a good slate of Wiki:InvitedAuthors. The site was, and remains, dedicated to Wiki:PeopleProjectsAndPatterns. + The [wiki:Wiki:FrontPage first ever wiki site] was founded in 1994 as an automated supplement to the Wiki:PortlandPatternRepository. The site was immediately popular within the pattern community, largely due to the newness of the internet and a good slate of Wiki:InvitedAuthors. The site was, and remains, dedicated to Wiki:PeopleProjectsAndPatterns. - Wiki:WardCunningham created the site and the WikiWikiWeb machinery that operates it. He chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for quick and thereby avoided naming this stuff quick-web. An early page, Wiki:WikiWikiHyperCard, traces wiki ideas back to a Wiki:HyperCard stack he wrote in the late 80's. + Wiki:WardCunningham created the site and the WikiWikiWeb machinery that operates it. He chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for quick and thereby avoided naming this stuff quick-web. An early page, Wiki:WikiWikiHyperCard, traces wiki ideas back to a Wiki:HyperCard stack he wrote in the late 80's. See also one of these links: * http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki or wiki:Wiki/FrontPage @@ -11, +11 @@ * get to know more about the Wiki:WikiHistory * [http://news.mpr.org/programs/futuretense/daily_rafiles/20011220.ram Ward Cunningham Radio Interview] - - == This problem is described there so so ... == - [http://xwoolwl.poes.net/fisting/ | gay and hardcoreand fisting][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pantyhose/ | wet sticky panties][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/fat/ | adult photos fat mature][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/gay/ | hot gay twins][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/black/ | interracial dating ebony women][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/webcam/ | adult web cam communities][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/creampie/ | black creampies internal, cumshots][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/rape/ | tiny teens forced to fuck][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/cumshot/ | free info on how to give a blow job][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/asian/ | creamy asian pussy picture gallerie][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/toons/ | anime vs manga][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/zoo/ | live animal porn][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pregnant/ | nude pics free pregnant women pic][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/celebrity/ | mr pink nude celebrity fakes][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/hairy/ | atk hairy + josie][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/lesbians/ | free strapon movies lesbian][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/amateurs/ | amateur teen porn gallery galleries][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/bizarre/ | bizarre accidents][http://xwoolwl.poes.net/pussy/ | free indian hairy pussy] - URL: http://www.ifso.ie/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi/WikiWikiWeb?action=diff

1 0

IFSO Meeting: Tuesday 18th October, 2000h, Mahaffey's Pub
by Malcolm Tyrrell 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Tomorrow is the third Tuesday of the month, so our regular IFSO meeting will happen in Mahaffey's Pub: http://www.ifso.ie/images/mahaffeys.png Non-members are welcome to attend. Most of the agenda will concern a talk we're arranging for November. We will also discuss IPRED2. Good luck, Malcolm. ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE October 2005