> Internal or personal use?

Are you or anyone on this list my customer, employer, employee or in any 
professional sense affiliated with me?

My affiliation with this list is entirely eduational and related to an indivual 
hobby.

I receive a print copy of the Journal, you are welcome to come over and read it 
in print, yes?

OK, I don't know how long I can remain serious about this, I am not terribly 
serious about it as it is. I guess I am just trying to figure out what "fair 
use" means.  If the list were not archived (the fact that the archive is broken 
at the moment aside) this would have just gone to a list of friends and not 
broadcast or really reporduced beyond what I could have done in person.

Actually my personal view, not that anyone cares, is that if it can be tatooed 
on my butt (sorry about the image) it can't be protected.  That is just a fact 
of digital nature.  Anyone relying on protecting any kind of content for their 
revenue had better accept that fact.  They can either generate their revenue in 
a manner that does not rely on protecting the content (they can still of course 
provide the content), or do what they can to minimize their losses and accept 
that some percent of their content will be "stolen".

(NOTE: Stolen isn't in quote because I think everyone has some god given right 
to content, just some people's definition of stolen is a bit excessive "Any time 
you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the 
programming." -- Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting)

> I originally just brought this up because I find it ironic especially
> since the discussion is about licensing of software and SCO's claims ...

Yes, I don't know why I am going to this extent ... probably because your 
comment prompted me to read the Terms for what I had posted.

Austin