Creative Commons Serbia

[Tomislav Medak <to-me AT mi2.hr>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ako mogu pomoci pomalo padobranski, jer nisam pratio cjelokupnu
diskusiju, u hrvatskoj lokalizaciji drzali smo se toga da su
funkcionalni pandan fair use doktrini sadrzajna ogranicenja autorskog
prava koja se nalaze propisana u Zakonu o autoskom pravu (cl. 80-98).

Osnovna ideja zasto se fair use nalazi u licenci je iskljucivo da se
naglasi da licenca nicime ne umanjuje slobode koje su vec zadane
zakonskim okvirom. Taj naglasak pravno gledajuci i nije potreban, buduci
da to pravo jamci zakon koji ima prioritet nad licencnim dopustenjem. On
je tu da se izbjegne izgovor.

Pozdrav,

Tom

cc-rs-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
> Send Cc-rs mailing list submissions to
>       cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       cc-rs-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       cc-rs-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Cc-rs digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re:  Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence       BYNCSA3.0
>       14 - 21.11.07. (Nena Antic)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:31:10 -0800 (PST)
> From: Nena Antic <advocat_studio AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence
>       BYNCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
> To: Creative Commons Serbia <cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <791296.9481.qm AT web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Izvinjavam se zbog ove zabune. Predlozeni tekst Licence  ne sadrzi fair 
> use/fair dealing rights, vec odgovarajuci ekvivalent upravo zato sto nase 
> pravo ne poznaje ovu doktrinu, sto je i objasnjeno u prevodu srpske Licence 
> na engleski jezik, u clanu 2: 
> http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/rs/english-license.pdf
> 
> " "Limitations on Copyright". Nothing in this License is intended to 
> restrict any uses freefrom copyright or rights arising from limitations or 
> exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright 
> protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.
> 
> Fair Dealing Rights ? Limitations on Copyright
> 
> Serbian Copyright Law does not recognize the Fair Dealing Rights, but there 
> are some explicit limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright 
> holder (Articles 40-55)".
> 
> Pravni koncept "fair use" sam pomenula van konteksta nacrta Licence, kako 
> se ne bi stvorio utisak da je to nedefinisana i proizvoljna kategorija, sto 
> je tokom prethodne diskusije moglo da se dogodi. Pored Licence, prevode se 
> i objasnjenja Creative Commons o Creative Commons licencama i njihovoj 
> upotrebi, CC FAQ u kojima se pominju i instituti koje nase pravo ne 
> poznaje, ali imaju pravno utemeljenje u americkom zakonodavstvu (fair use). 
> 
> Pozdrav,
> Nena
> 
> apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu> wrote:     Imam problem sa pitanjem svrhe prevoda 
> i predlozene  licence.
>   
>  Nesporno je da se fair use prevodi kao postena  upotreba, ali se taj 
> institut ne primenjuje u nasem pravu. Licenca se (prema  tekstu uvoda) 
> primenjuje u meri u kojoj je saglasna sa zakonom zemlje na ciji  jezik se 
> prevodi.  Samom ovom cinjenicom (a i da nije eksplicitno receno,  isti 
> zakljucak proizilazi iz naseg prava) instituti koji ne postoje u nasem  
> pravu nemaju mesta u prevodu licence. Nemaju funkciju. 
>  Zato je dobar (pravno) predlog koji nam je  dostavljen- "ogranicenja 
> autorskog prava" a ne bukvalni prevod naziva termina  fair use. Sacuvan je 
> smisao, znacenje je dobro preneto u srpski jezik i u  srpsko pravo. 
>   
>  Inace, koncepcija iz americkog zakona je dobila  svoj sadrzaj tek kroz 
> americku sudsku praksu i daleko je od jednostavne. Ima  cetiri kriterijuma 
> koja su relevantna pri oceni da li je rec o fair use ili  povredi, ali ta 
> cetiri kriterijuma za nase pravo nisu obavezujuca pri oceni da  li postoji 
> povreda, da li su predjene granice prava ili ne. Ni po jednom osnovu.  
>   
>  Na sta se svodi problem? Ova licenca zaista treba  da izrazava koncept CC 
> i da taj koncept ucini prihvatljivim u nasem pravu. Cemu  inace prevod? 
> Koncept je sigurno bolje poznat Neni i nekim ljudima koji su se  ukljucili 
> u diskusiju nego meni. Ali, ako u tom tekstu ostanu izrazi (i smisao)  koji 
> ne postoje u srpskom pravu pa su neprimenljivi, onda to nema  smisla.
>   
>  To nije samo problem ove grupe. Tzv. "forum  shopping" odnosno odabir suda 
> pred kojim ce se postupak u slucaju povrede  autorskog ili srodnog prava 
> voditi - je rezultat cinjenice da ne postoji  medjunarodno autorsko pravo, 
> da su razlike takve da jedna ista situacija u  razlicitim zemljama moze da 
> bude razlicito presudjena. Neki zajednicki minimum  izrazen kroz 
> medjunarodne ugovore nije funkcionalan za konkretne situacije. Nema  sanse 
> da mi taj problem resimo ovim prevodom. 
>   
>  Ili radimo bukvalni prevod zanemarujuci pitanje  primenljivosti takvog 
> prevoda u Srbiji, ili radimo prevod koji je primeren  srpskom pravu. 
>   
>  Tako bi tzv. "public domain" (ne znam ko je  postavio to pitanje, ne secam 
> se) u nasem pravu bilo "slobodno delo" (delo u  slobodnoj upotrebi, po 
> isteku roka zastite). Tako fair use postaje "ogranicenje  autorskog prava".
>   
>  Verica 
>   
>   
>   
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>    From:    Nena    Antic 
>    To: Creative Commons Serbia 
>    Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:50    PM
>    Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom    nacrtu nacionalne CC licence 
> BYNCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
>    
> 
> Koncepcija "fair use" je opisana i definisana americkim zakonom    o 
> autorskom pravu i odnosi se na ogranicenja iskljucivih prava 
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107    . Kod nas se prevodi 
> terminom Postena upotreba.    
> 
> Nena
> 
> apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu> wrote:    ???                  Super komentar. 
> Narocito deo and to maintain the CC "brand-recognition" for      the 
> movement behind the licenses
>      Ono sto se danas najcesce zove brand, kod nas u pravu zig, definise se 
>      kao : pravno priznanje psiholoske funkcije simbola. Neko ime, neka 
> slika-      automatski podseca na nesto ili se vezuje (tacno ili pogresno) 
> za nesto,      aktivira predstavu koju imamo.
>       
>             -----        Original Message ----- 
>        From:        vlidi @slobodnakultura.org        
>        To:        Creative Commons Serbia 
>        Sent:        Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:27 PM
>        Subject:        Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC 
> licence BY NCSA3.0 14 -        21.11.07.
>        
> 
> Pozdrav svima, i mnogo hvala na ucescu u        debati...
> 
> Verice, slazem se, "fair use" je prilican problem, jer se        cesto 
> ljudi pozivaju na instituciju tog termina, koji ni u USA nije        
> "stabilan" i nije precizno definisan unapred, nesto sto podseca na to kako  
>       funkcionise cenzura u Kini - otprilike znamo sta je OK a sta ne, ali 
> je u        svakom trenutku moguce da se nesto dokazuje ili izvodi pred 
> sudom, i da se        interperetira... U mnogo tekstova, cak i u CC FAQ 
> koji treba da prevedemo,        "fair use" se navodi kao nesto sto ima 
> podrazumevano znacenje... 
> 
> A        sto se tice upotrebnog i govornog imena za licence, ne znam, mnogo 
> sam o        tome razmisljao, svi predlozi koje sam cuo su i dalje 
> konstrukti i        prilicno su "rogobatni", u meri u kojoj ne opavdavaju 
> konfuziju koja bi        nastala ako zamenimo dovoljno nezgodan, za nase 
> jezicko podrucije, izraz        "Creative Commons". Pitali smo i ljude iz 
> CC boarda sta misle i kakva su        njihova iskustva u vezi toga: 
> 
> 
> Rolado Lemos:
> 
> Q:        Discussing the licenses, is there maybe a semantical problem in   
>      penetration of CC licenses into, let's say, public service? I don't 
> know        how it works in Portuguese, but for an average Slavic language 
> user, who        would be maybe a 55 years old civil servant, it's very 
> hard just because        of the language barrier to imagine licensing this 
> civil servant's work on        "Creative Commons 3.0", not to mention 
> bigger problems in understanding        the concept. Is it possible to 
> maybe rethink the names of licenses         and to maintain the CC 
> "brand-recognition" for the movement behind the        licenses, and to 
> invent some neutral phrases, without much meaning but        easy to 
> recognize things like flickr, google, etc...? 
> 
> A:        This is a great question, and we had this problem in Brazil as 
> well. The        term Creative Commons in Portuguese is very difficult, 
> even how to        pronounce it. This is a problem that we had from the 
> beginning. But when        we started the project, Creative Commons Brazil 
> launched a challenge,        because Brazilians have this capacity of 
> reincorporating other cultures,        transforming them and giving them 
> back in a completely different way. So        we launched this challenge of 
> who would be the person who would        reincorporate Creative Commons in 
> Portuguese and come up with something        that is meaningful. I called 
> it "the challenge of the utererizacao" - I        know this term is very 
> weird, I will explain where it comes from. There is        a famous hip hop 
> song, where they say: "whoomp there it is, whoomp, there        it is." 
> Everybody knows it and it's very popular in Brazil. But we don't        
> know as Portuguese speakers how to
>  pronounce "whoomp, there it is." So        Brazilians transformed it into 
> "uuu-te-re-re", that sounds similar.        
> 
> Q:        Does it mean anything?
> 
> Nothing. It doesn't mean        anything. And then I launched the challenge 
> that said "we are not going to        translate the license - if someone 
> wants, please go ahead, find nicknames,        find other words to refer to 
> this license". Then the minister of culture        Gilberto Gil came with a 
> definition that is called licen??a creativa,        which means "creative 
> license" -  it was OK, but not that good... And        then a guy from 
> Salvador said: oh, in Portuguese Creative Commons        phonetically 
> sounds like "criei tive como" - "I created because I had        how", and 
> sometimes we adopt that. Because it's plain Portuguese and it        has a 
> similar meaning as the original license. So what I would suggest,        
> I'm not sure, different cultures have different solutions, but take up      
>   this challenge, let people tell you how you should call it, invent        
> nicknames - it makes people closer to the idea and they can reinvent the    
>     whole thing for
>  you and can cooperate with you and become        re-appropriating, which 
> is for me the most important thing, how people can        re-appropriate 
> these ideas and recreate them. That happened in Brazil and        it's 
> really nice. 
> 
> 
> Lawrence        Lessig:
> 
> Q: Talking about        licences, the very name of the Creative Commons 
> licenses is something that        derived from, and is inherent to English 
> language. It's hardly        translatable because of the several layers of 
> its meaning, especially the        word common, but the very semantic 
> value, or the spoken word value differs        between the different 
> languages. For example, in this region of Slavic        languages, it's 
> pretty hard to be pronounced and it is pretty hard for me        to imagine 
> fifty-something civil servant issuing a statement and saying        that 
> they would licence public announcements on Creative Commons        
> Attribution version 3.01. So, have you ever considered  keeping        
> Creative Commons movement branded as Creative Commons, but giving licenses  
>       some catchy 2.0 name, like flickr, google, digg ??? something which   
>      doesn't mean anything, but  is easy to be pronnounced in different     
>    languages and easy to be remembered,
>  and not in need of any translation at        all? 
> 
> We think about this all the time. We thought about it        when we 
> launched the licences for the first time, giving the licences        
> particular brand names. And so that continues to be something we think      
>   about. The particular issue of how to translate the commons is both an    
>     opportunity and a problem. It's a problem because there's not going to 
> be        any good translation and you shouldn't imagine that even within 
> English        people understand what it means. I mean, it's an obscure 
> idea, especially        in the United States, so we have always thought 
> from the very beginning,        it was an education process, and that is an 
> opportunity with it. As you        try to get people focus on what it is 
> this means, they think more clearly        about the world that's around 
> them, they begin to recognize important        assets in their culture that 
> are in the commons technically ??? parks and        roads, and culture and 
> holidays, those are components
>  of the commons and        that everybody experiences whether they have a 
> word for it or not.         Now, we are open to finding simpler ways to 
> express the ideas, what's        happened is not really by our intention. 
> But what's happened is that the        icons have become a kind of 
> universal expressions. So BY-NC, of course you        have to know 
> something to know what that means, but as a tag that goes        with 
> certain licences it is understandable. Where we see government        
> institutions beginning to adopt the licences, they are very precise about   
>      what kind of licence they are trying to adopt.        
> 
> 
> 
> pozdrav,
> vlidi.
> 
> 
> 
>        On 11/21/07, Bon        Edi <edibon AT eunet.yu>        wrote:        
> Sad          jedan predlog... U duh naseg jezika je da se imena ne prevode. 
> Dakle,          kao
> sto se ne prevodi ime grada New York, tako ne treba prevoditi          
> imena licenci
> "Creative Commons" ili "Share Alike"... Prosto, prevode          se 
> objasnjenja koja se 
> odnose na ovaj naziv, pa i nema potrebe da se          prave zabune 
> unosenjema ovih
> prevoda.
> Ja bi pre da vise raspravimo          o stvarima tipa "attribution", sto u 
> stvari treba
> da se odnosi ne na          "autorstvo", vec na "navodjenje ili 
> naznacavanje autorstva" 
> sto u          sustini i nije ba ista stvar... Zato predlazem da se nekako  
>         uvedu
> definicije stvari na pocetku same licence, pa ako se dogovorimo          
> oko nekog
> naziva
> koji i nije bas u potpunosti precizan, da ga onda          definisemo negde 
> u okviru 
> licence, i posle se pozivanjem na to zna          tacno na sta se misli...
> 
> Edi
> 
> Quoting apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu>:
> 
>>          Pozdrav,
>>
>> Izvinjavam  se sto komentar stize          poslednji dan. 
>>
>> Komentar je pre svega dat sa aspekta          pravnog znacenja pojedinih 
>> izraza.
>>
>> 1. U uvodnom delu u          prvom pasusu umesto reci raspolaganje vise 
>> odgovara izraz
>>          koriscenje. Raspolaganje je pre sinonim za prenos vlasnistva, a u 
>> ovom          
>> slucaju se ne radi o tome.
>>
>> 2. komentar          definicije pod 1.c. Distribucija. Predlog: 
>> Distribucija je
>>          cinjenje javnosti dostupnim primeraka originala ili kopija Dela   
>>        ili
>> Adaptacije na odgovarajuci nacin, prodajom ili drugim          oblikom 
>> prenosa svojine 
>> na primerku. (razlog je cinjenica da se          distribucija uvek odnosi 
>> na tzv.
>> robne primerke tipa: knjiga,          DVD i da se neki izuzeci primenjuju 
>> iskljucivo u
>> slucaju kada se          delo stavlja u promet kao roba a ne kao usluga. 
>> Zato bi ovo 
>>          trebalo pojasniti. )
>>
>> 3. Definicija 1d ima najvise veze i          sa komentarom prevoda CC, 
>> odnosno
>> potrebom          prevodjenja.  Cini mi se da je sustina izraza          
>> Autorstvo
>> (Attribution) u stvari stvaralacki doprinos (na) Delu          ili 
>> Adaptaciji 
>> (mogucnost da se stvaralastvo ne ogranici          monopolom, vec da se 
>> ostavi
>> otvorenom za dalje stvaralastvo. )          Predlog: Elementi licence 
>> su.... i koje su
>> sadrzane u nazivu          licence: doprinos stvaralstvu, nekomercijalna 
>> upotreba i 
>>          dozvola daljeg koriscenja pod istim uslovima. Znam da deluje malo 
>> duze,          i
>> jeste, ali cini mi se da odrazava smisao. Za ShareAlike bih i          
>> sama volela da
>> nadjem bolji predlog, ali trenutno ga nemam. Ne          radi se o podeli 
>> sa jednom 
>> osobom, radi se o mogucnosti da se          delo dalje prosledjuje ne radi
>> zaradjivanja, vec radi nesputanog          stvaralastva. Volela bih da 
>> cujem srecniji
>> predlog za          ShareAlike. Nemam ga trenutno.
>>
>> 4. Prevod          definicije  1f je jedini moguci u nasem pravu. Samo 
>> fizicko          lice
>> moze da bude autor, jer samo fizicko lice (covek, ne firma          ) ima 
>> mogucnost
>> duhovnog stvaralastva.  Ovaj prevod          koji nam je dostavljen je uzi 
>> od 
>> originala, ali doslovan prevod          na nas jezik bio bi netacan.
>>
>>
>> 5. Definicija dela          je malo suzena u odnosu na engleski tekst, a 
>> nema razloga
>> za          oprez kao kod definicije originalnog autora pod 1. f. Predlog: 
>> Delo          znaci 
>> literarno i/ili umetnicko delo koje se nudi pod uslovima          ove 
>> licence, bez
>> obzira na formu (oblik) u kojoj je delo          izrazeno, ukljucujuci i 
>> digitalnu
>> fomru dela kao sto su:knjiga,          pamflet i druga pisana dela- 
>> predavanja, .. 
>>
>> Sve sto je          navedeno u engleskom jeziku je ukljuceno i u nas 
>> zakon.          Medjutim,
>> bitno je naglasniti i digitalni oblik.
>>
>>          Sto se tice  izvodjenja  i fonograma (interpretacija          u 
>> nasem pravu), ono je 
>> u nasem pravu (i u kontinentalnom          odnosno pravu EU) srodno pravo 
>> (prava
>> posebnih korisnika          autorskih dela, cija je privredna ili 
>> profesionalna
>> delatnost          zasnovana na koriscenju autorskih dela). Autorsko delo 
>> i predmet          
>> srodnog prava (interpretacija, fonogram, emisija, baza          podataka, 
>> videogram)
>> su dve razlicite kategorije. (nisu nikako          copyrightable work, 
>> potpuno je
>> druga pravna          kategorija)
>>
>> Da bi se prevod ucinio prihvaljivim u nasem          pravu, predlog kraja 
>> definicije 
>> dela je sledeci:
>> U          smislu ove licence upodobljavaju  se autorskom delu i          
>> interpretacija ,
>> fonogram i baza podataka- kao prava srodna          autorskom a priznata  
>> u domacem
>> pravu:
>>
>>          6. I kod definicije javnog saopstavanja treba imati u vidu 
>> razliku          izmedju 
>> americkog i naseg (preuzetog iz prava Evropske unije)          sistema. I 
>> cinjenicu da
>> nase pravo razlikuje kao dva oblika          izvodjenje i predstavljanje 
>> dela
>> (kriterijum razlike je da li je          u pitanju scensko delo ili ne). 
>> Predlog: Javno saopstavati          znaci izvoditi delo neposredno pred 
>> publikom ili
>> komunicirati          delom sa publikom na bilo koji nacin, uklju;ujuci i 
>> zicni i
>>          bezicni prenos ili javni digitalni prenos; ciniti dostupnim delo 
>> publici          na 
>> nacin da pojedinci mogu pristupiti delu u vreme i sa mesta          koje 
>> sami izaberu;
>> predstavljati delo publici na bilo koji nacin          i bilo kojim 
>> procesom i
>> saopstavati predstavu dela publici          ukljucujuci i digitalno 
>> izvodjenje, 
>> emitovanje i reemitovanje          dela bilo kojim znacima, zvucima ili 
>> slikom.
>>
>> Javno          saopstavanje mora da ukljucuje u definiciji dva oblika:     
>>      saopstavanje
>> ili komunikaciju (tzv. communication right), kao          posebno pravo 
>> sire od drugog 
>> prava cinjenja dostupnim (making          available). Ovo su dva oblika i 
>> kod nas u
>> pravu. Ako se          saopstavanje definise samo iinteraktivnim cinjenjem 
>> ova dva
>>          oblika (posebna u Direktivi o autorskom pravu u informativnom 
>> drustvu          koja je 
>> iz 2000. i implementirana je, doduse sa problemima u          Francuskoj, 
>> u celoj
>> Evropi) se nece razlikovati. A morala          bi.
>>
>> 7. Prevod clana dva je uspesan primer onoga sto sam          ja pokusala 
>> prethodnim 
>> predlozima. Fair use je insistitut koji          ne postoji u nasem pravu. 
>> Tipicno
>> americki institut koji ima          svoje uslove, ogranicenja.... Kod nas 
>> se to svodi
>> na izraz koji          je upotrebljen "ogranicenja autorskog prava" i u 
>> skladu je sa 
>>          tekstom kojim se definise.
>>
>> Pozdrav
>> Verica          Vukovic
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>   From:          Nena Antic
>>   To: Creative Commons          Serbia
>>   Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:28 AM          
>>   Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu          nacionalne CC 
>> licence BY NC
>> SA3.0 14 -          21.11.07.
>>
>>
>>            Naravno!
>>
>>   Nena
>>
>>            Milos Rancic <          millosh AT lingvistika.org> wrote:
>>              On Nov 20, 2007 3:55 AM, Nena Antic          wrote:
>>     > Skracenice BY, NC, SA...se          prevode punim nazivom:
>>     > BY -          Autorstvo, NC - Nekomercijalno, SA - Deliti pod istim 
>> uslovima          
>>
>>     Neno, koristi mala slova          prilikom tipskih opisa licenci (ako 
>> gde
>>              treba). Znaci, BY-NC (ako gde treba to napisati tipski) 
>> "autorstvo          -
>>              nekomercijalno".
>>              _______________________________________________          
>>     Cc-rs mailing          list
>>     Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>              http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs          
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>            Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your          homepage.
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            Cc-rs mailing list
>>   Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>            http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs          mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> 
> 
>        
>        
> ---------------------------------
>         
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs        mailing        list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs      mailing      list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> 
>       
> 
> ---------------------------------
>    Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try 
>    it now.       
> 
> ---------------------------------
>     
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing    list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> 
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.  Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-rs/attachments/20071122/a60f3c8d/attachment.htm
>  
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> 
> 
> End of Cc-rs Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8
> ***********************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHRixMkbN024ZV0z0RAgBiAKC2qXCE1fxGpPs6P6mEq9rd0Wbr4gCcDZVy
qT1qnmYuRsAEH8HlMj9QDUA=
=Ts9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----