Dear colleagues, Recent discussions on this list seem to highlight two main ways in which we may contrast the high costs of many scientific journals, as well as some unethical connections of big publishing companies: 1. To support, and possibly develop, free electronic journals like TAC and low-cost printed journals like Cahiers. (Here, I would like to express my gratitude to persons like Bob Rosebrugh, Michael Barr and Andree Ehresmann, which make this possible.) 2. To systematically send our preprints to an electronic archive, and only submit them to journals which allow the permanence of such files in these archives. As to point 2, there seems to be a clear candidate, arXiv. (And of course it would be good to have a "universal solution", where one would easily find things.) I have used of this possibility a few times. Before deciding of doing so in a systematic way, I would like that there be a clear statement of the policy of "arXiv" and clear assumptions of responsibility by its organisers; statements which, likely, the organisers and many of us take as understood and granted, but which I have been unable to find on the net. For instance, what about the possibility of the system being, in future, exploited economically? What about the possibility of it being sold to a commercial company - connected or not with strange trades? When downloading a preprint at arXiv, the author is asked to sign (electronically) a sort of non-exclusive transfer of copyright. I think we have a right to know that this transfer will not be used, in future, for goals which would be in contrast with the present (understood) ones, or even opposite to them. Waiting for being able to extend my gratitude to the organisers of arXiv Marco Grandis