>>25
It used some automatic OCR thing, which made most text readable, but some of the code had characters misplaced, like , vs . or 1 vs l or 0 vs O or o. I would have preferred a simple scanned version (no unreliable OCR) instead. >>26
I've searched in other places for it, and all had the exact same file. I don't know if there's other scans/copies of it.