27 Jun
2005
27 Jun
'05
1:25 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:22:18AM -0700,
magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
I meaing when we are printing out a copyright note
and that copyright note must be intact or the
copyright string. they are not allown to change it.
The license does not say this.
see paragraph 2.c and reactos is interactiv.
2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must
be displayed. It does not define what appropriate
means. It does *not* say, anywhere, that the copyright
notice cannot be modified.
and you for not remove or modify any copyright under
runtime.
I'm sorry, but your logic is patently false. The
license in no way states that you cannot alter the
copyright notice. It states only that you *must show
an appropriate notice*. That means showing no notice
would be wrong, but showing an altered notice is not
(in and of itself) wrong.
This could be wrong under copyright law, but the
license does not in any way forbid it.
I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime
copyright notes.
And I can understand your frustration; I think it's
completely justified and warranted.
sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl
therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to
reactos.
Not true. LGPL is a DUAL license (both GPL and LGPL).
See section 3 of the LGPL. When taking an LGPL library
and using it as GPL, it is not a sub-license -- it is
a separate license that you are allowed to use *in
stead of* the LGPL.
Someone taking your GPL source code and using it in
a separate project, also released under the GPL, is
not sub-licensing your code either. The code is
available to that project's end-users under your
license -- you license your code directly to
HostiliX's (or anyone else's) end-users as GPL code.
There is no sub-license involved, period.
and gpl say any sublicen part of source code. the
sublicen for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can
not become gpl
Yes it can. See section 3 of the LGPL.
for we are realing wine code back as
lgpl.
Here's how it works. You bring in LGPL code. You
modify the LGPL code. It's all still LGPL. You
release the LGPL code back to Wine, everything is
fine. You go to release it with your GPL code and,
oops, incompatibility with the GPL! At that point, you
invoke the second license (LGPL section 3) and treat
the code as GPL. Then boom, everything works out fine.
There is no sub-licensing. There is dual licensing,
and that's not the same thing.
therefor can they not take thuse dll or other
part of source in ros comes under diffent licen and
change it. for the main licen forbit it.
see paragraph 4
But they aren't changing the license; they are using
the GPL. I'll say it again: *no sub-licensing
happens*.
To prove your points, you need to do one of the
following:
* Name/show the non-GPL license they are using
* Show where a copyright notice used to print, and
now does not print *at all*.
Double sigh.
-- Travis
Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>om>:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700,
> magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still
> > breaking gpl
>
> I also don't particularly like what they are doing
> but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL.
>
> > see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c
> > If the modified program normally reads commands
> > interactively when run, you must cause it, when
> > started running for such interactive use in the
> > most ordinary way, to print or display an
> > announcement
>
> (emphasis)
> > including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> > notice that there is no warranty (or else,
> > saying that you provide a warranty) and that
> > users may redistribute the program under these
> > conditions, and telling the user how to view a
> > copy of this License.
> (/emphasis)
>
> > (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive
> > but does not normally print such an
> > announcement, your work based on the Program is
> > not required to print an announcement.)
> >
> >
> > Hotlix have replace there copyright note on
> > every dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are
> > interactive when it start and therefore are you
> > not allown to change the copyright note.
>
> Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The
> license above says that the modified program must
> display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it
> does not say that the notice can't be changed.
> Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the
> original dev's name) may not be the legal
> definition (e.g., the most significant
> contributor, the latest contributor, the second
> developer's third-neice-twice-removed's
> boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the
checklist:
>
> 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is
> appropriate?
> 2. Do they print that the program is GPL-
> licensed?
> 3. Do they print how to view the license terms?
>
> They appear to comply (or can easily comply with)
> 2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is
> gray.
>
> > When you take
> > view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are
> > showing our copyright. therefor are you not
> > allown to change this copyright note.
>
> (see above -- same error)
>
> > and they are breaking paragraph
> > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> > distribute the Program except as expressly
> > provided under this License. Any attempt
> > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
> > distribute the Program is void, and will
> > automatically terminate your rights under this
> > License. However, parties who have received
> > copies, or rights, from you under this License
> > will not have their licenses terminated so long
> > as such parties remain in full compliance.
> >
> >
> > They are not allown to change any licen from us.
>
> Please clarify. According to them, they are using
> the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how
> they are changing the licensing.
>
> > for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our
> > own code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a
> > sublicen.
>
> I don't really understand what you're trying to
> say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you
> to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively
> a dual license). The LGPL states:
>
> 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary
> GNU General Public License instead of this License
> to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you
> must alter all the notices that refer to this
> License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU
> General Public License, version 2, instead of to
> this License. (If a newer version than version 2
> of the ordinary GNU General Public License has
> appeared, then you can specify that version
> instead if you wish.) Do not make any other
> change in these notices.
>
> Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's
> all one license (GPL).
>
> > I have not check see if they are still breaking
> > more paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to
> > we or I should send a email say at they have
> > break gpl and they are not longer right to use
> > our code or my.
>
> As irate as you may be, nothing that you've
> brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of
> the GPL (although they could *potentially* be
> breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by
> adding their copyright notices and removing
> existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of
> patches).
>
> > I need get this out from my head and hart. I am
> > alot pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our
> > patch and put into there source there. without
> > telling how have wrote the code.
>
> I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People
> deserve credit and recognition for the work that
> they do.
>
> > That mean they are breaking some copyright laws.
>
> If you can find the particular law that applies,
> go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself,
> so I don't know what laws even apply to them --
> let alone if they're breaking those laws.
>
> > You can not take other source code and put into
> > another there without writen permitontion
>
> You contributed your code under the terms of the
> GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to
> say -- by your own choice of license, the source
> code is available to be copied, reworked, and re-
> released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that
> they do seem to be in compliance (though only by
> words and not in spirit).
>
> > or tell where the code comes from. if you look
> > at there source there you will think they have
> > wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper at
> > us that have write the patch for reactos.
>
>
> Sigh.
>
> -- Travis
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27 Jun
27 Jun
1:37 p.m.
New subject: Pissoff hotlix
Why do you consider an altered copyright notice appropriate?
Brandon
Quandary wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:22:18AM -0700,
magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
I meaing when we are printing out a copyright
note
and that copyright note must be intact or the
copyright string. they are not allown to change it.
The license does not say this.
see paragraph 2.c and reactos is interactiv.
2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must
be displayed. It does not define what appropriate
means. It does *not* say, anywhere, that the copyright
notice cannot be modified.
and you for not remove or modify any copyright
under
runtime.
I'm sorry, but your logic is patently false. The
license in no way states that you cannot alter the
copyright notice. It states only that you *must show
an appropriate notice*. That means showing no notice
would be wrong, but showing an altered notice is not
(in and of itself) wrong.
This could be wrong under copyright law, but the
license does not in any way forbid it.
I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime
copyright notes.
And I can understand your frustration; I think it's
completely justified and warranted.
sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl
therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to
reactos.
Not true. LGPL is a DUAL license (both GPL and LGPL).
See section 3 of the LGPL. When taking an LGPL library
and using it as GPL, it is not a sub-license -- it is
a separate license that you are allowed to use *in
stead of* the LGPL.
Someone taking your GPL source code and using it in
a separate project, also released under the GPL, is
not sub-licensing your code either. The code is
available to that project's end-users under your
license -- you license your code directly to
HostiliX's (or anyone else's) end-users as GPL code.
There is no sub-license involved, period.
and gpl say any sublicen part of source code. the
sublicen for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can
not become gpl
Yes it can. See section 3 of the LGPL.
for we are realing wine code back as
lgpl.
Here's how it works. You bring in LGPL code. You
modify the LGPL code. It's all still LGPL. You
release the LGPL code back to Wine, everything is
fine. You go to release it with your GPL code and,
oops, incompatibility with the GPL! At that point, you
invoke the second license (LGPL section 3) and treat
the code as GPL. Then boom, everything works out fine.
There is no sub-licensing. There is dual licensing,
and that's not the same thing.
therefor can they not take thuse dll or other
part of source in ros comes under diffent licen and
change it. for the main licen forbit it.
see paragraph 4
But they aren't changing the license; they are using
the GPL. I'll say it again: *no sub-licensing
happens*.
To prove your points, you need to do one of the
following:
* Name/show the non-GPL license they are using
* Show where a copyright notice used to print, and
now does not print *at all*.
Double sigh.
-- Travis
Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>om>:
>On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700,
>magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
>
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still
>>breaking gpl
>>
>>
>I also don't particularly like what they are doing
>but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL.
>
>
>
>>see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c
>>If the modified program normally reads commands
>>interactively when run, you must cause it, when
>>started running for such interactive use in the
>>most ordinary way, to print or display an
>>announcement
>>
>>
>(emphasis)
>
>
>>including an appropriate copyright notice and a
>>notice that there is no warranty (or else,
>>saying that you provide a warranty) and that
>>users may redistribute the program under these
>>conditions, and telling the user how to view a
>>copy of this License.
>>
>>
>(/emphasis)
>
>
>
>>(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive
>>but does not normally print such an
>>announcement, your work based on the Program is
>>not required to print an announcement.)
>>
>>
>>Hotlix have replace there copyright note on
>>every dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are
>>interactive when it start and therefore are you
>>not allown to change the copyright note.
>>
>>
>Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The
>license above says that the modified program must
>display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it
>does not say that the notice can't be changed.
>Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the
>original dev's name) may not be the legal
>definition (e.g., the most significant
>contributor, the latest contributor, the second
>developer's third-neice-twice-removed's
>boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the
>
>
checklist:
> 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is
> appropriate?
> 2. Do they print that the program is GPL-
> licensed?
> 3. Do they print how to view the license terms?
>
>They appear to comply (or can easily comply with)
>2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is
>gray.
>
>
>
>>When you take
>>view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are
>>showing our copyright. therefor are you not
>>allown to change this copyright note.
>>
>>
>(see above -- same error)
>
>
>
>>and they are breaking paragraph
>>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
>>distribute the Program except as expressly
>>provided under this License. Any attempt
>>otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
>>distribute the Program is void, and will
>>automatically terminate your rights under this
>>License. However, parties who have received
>>copies, or rights, from you under this License
>>will not have their licenses terminated so long
>>as such parties remain in full compliance.
>>
>>
>>They are not allown to change any licen from us.
>>
>>
>Please clarify. According to them, they are using
>the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how
>they are changing the licensing.
>
>
>
>>for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our
>>own code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a
>>sublicen.
>>
>>
>I don't really understand what you're trying to
>say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you
>to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively
>a dual license). The LGPL states:
>
>3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary
>GNU General Public License instead of this License
>to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you
>must alter all the notices that refer to this
>License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU
>General Public License, version 2, instead of to
>this License. (If a newer version than version 2
>of the ordinary GNU General Public License has
>appeared, then you can specify that version
>instead if you wish.) Do not make any other
>change in these notices.
>
>Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's
>all one license (GPL).
>
>
>
>>I have not check see if they are still breaking
>>more paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to
>>we or I should send a email say at they have
>>break gpl and they are not longer right to use
>>our code or my.
>>
>>
>As irate as you may be, nothing that you've
>brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of
>the GPL (although they could *potentially* be
>breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by
>adding their copyright notices and removing
>existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of
>patches).
>
>
>
>>I need get this out from my head and hart. I am
>>alot pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our
>>patch and put into there source there. without
>>telling how have wrote the code.
>>
>>
>I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People
>deserve credit and recognition for the work that
>they do.
>
>
>
>>That mean they are breaking some copyright laws.
>>
>>
>If you can find the particular law that applies,
>go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself,
>so I don't know what laws even apply to them --
>let alone if they're breaking those laws.
>
>
>
>>You can not take other source code and put into
>>another there without writen permitontion
>>
>>
>You contributed your code under the terms of the
>GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to
>say -- by your own choice of license, the source
>code is available to be copied, reworked, and re-
>released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that
>they do seem to be in compliance (though only by
>words and not in spirit).
>
>
>
>>or tell where the code comes from. if you look
>>at there source there you will think they have
>>wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper at
>>us that have write the patch for reactos.
>>
>>
>Sigh.
>
>-- Travis
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
1:53 p.m.
New subject: Pissoff hotlix
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html <- url to gpl licen
read paragrpah 2
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you
must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most
ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate
copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that
you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these
conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print
such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print
an announcement.)
the text above are from gpl and I have include where to obtain the gpl licen.
If I do not complete wrong we are relasng wine dll as lgpl in the source there
not gpl. therefor it become a sublicen, we do not change the licen from lgpl to
gpl. if you reading wine source code for wine dll files you will see it is
under lgpl not gpl.
Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>om>:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:22:18AM -0700,
magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
I meaing when we are printing out a copyright
note
and that copyright note must be intact or the
copyright string. they are not allown to change it.
The license does not say this.
see paragraph 2.c and reactos is interactiv.
2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must
be displayed. It does not define what appropriate
means. It does *not* say, anywhere, that the copyright
notice cannot be modified.
and you for not remove or modify any copyright
under
runtime.
I'm sorry, but your logic is patently false. The
license in no way states that you cannot alter the
copyright notice. It states only that you *must show
an appropriate notice*. That means showing no notice
would be wrong, but showing an altered notice is not
(in and of itself) wrong.
This could be wrong under copyright law, but the
license does not in any way forbid it.
I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime
copyright notes.
And I can understand your frustration; I think it's
completely justified and warranted.
sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl
therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to
reactos.
Not true. LGPL is a DUAL license (both GPL and LGPL).
See section 3 of the LGPL. When taking an LGPL library
and using it as GPL, it is not a sub-license -- it is
a separate license that you are allowed to use *in
stead of* the LGPL.
Someone taking your GPL source code and using it in
a separate project, also released under the GPL, is
not sub-licensing your code either. The code is
available to that project's end-users under your
license -- you license your code directly to
HostiliX's (or anyone else's) end-users as GPL code.
There is no sub-license involved, period.
and gpl say any sublicen part of source code.
the
sublicen for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can
not become gpl
Yes it can. See section 3 of the LGPL.
for we are realing wine code back as
lgpl.
Here's how it works. You bring in LGPL code. You
modify the LGPL code. It's all still LGPL. You
release the LGPL code back to Wine, everything is
fine. You go to release it with your GPL code and,
oops, incompatibility with the GPL! At that point, you
invoke the second license (LGPL section 3) and treat
the code as GPL. Then boom, everything works out fine.
There is no sub-licensing. There is dual licensing,
and that's not the same thing.
therefor can they not take thuse dll or other
part of source in ros comes under diffent licen and
change it. for the main licen forbit it.
see paragraph 4
But they aren't changing the license; they are using
the GPL. I'll say it again: *no sub-licensing
happens*.
To prove your points, you need to do one of the
following:
* Name/show the non-GPL license they are using
* Show where a copyright notice used to print, and
now does not print *at all*.
Double sigh.
-- Travis
Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>om>:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700,
> magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still
> > breaking gpl
>
> I also don't particularly like what they are doing
> but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL.
>
> > see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c
> > If the modified program normally reads commands
> > interactively when run, you must cause it, when
> > started running for such interactive use in the
> > most ordinary way, to print or display an
> > announcement
>
> (emphasis)
> > including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> > notice that there is no warranty (or else,
> > saying that you provide a warranty) and that
> > users may redistribute the program under these
> > conditions, and telling the user how to view a
> > copy of this License.
> (/emphasis)
>
> > (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive
> > but does not normally print such an
> > announcement, your work based on the Program is
> > not required to print an announcement.)
> >
> >
> > Hotlix have replace there copyright note on
> > every dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are
> > interactive when it start and therefore are you
> > not allown to change the copyright note.
>
> Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The
> license above says that the modified program must
> display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it
> does not say that the notice can't be changed.
> Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the
> original dev's name) may not be the legal
> definition (e.g., the most significant
> contributor, the latest contributor, the second
> developer's third-neice-twice-removed's
> boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the
checklist:
>
> 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is
> appropriate?
> 2. Do they print that the program is GPL-
> licensed?
> 3. Do they print how to view the license terms?
>
> They appear to comply (or can easily comply with)
> 2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is
> gray.
>
> > When you take
> > view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are
> > showing our copyright. therefor are you not
> > allown to change this copyright note.
>
> (see above -- same error)
>
> > and they are breaking paragraph
> > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> > distribute the Program except as expressly
> > provided under this License. Any attempt
> > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
> > distribute the Program is void, and will
> > automatically terminate your rights under this
> > License. However, parties who have received
> > copies, or rights, from you under this License
> > will not have their licenses terminated so long
> > as such parties remain in full compliance.
> >
> >
> > They are not allown to change any licen from us.
>
> Please clarify. According to them, they are using
> the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how
> they are changing the licensing.
>
> > for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our
> > own code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a
> > sublicen.
>
> I don't really understand what you're trying to
> say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you
> to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively
> a dual license). The LGPL states:
>
> 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary
> GNU General Public License instead of this License
> to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you
> must alter all the notices that refer to this
> License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU
> General Public License, version 2, instead of to
> this License. (If a newer version than version 2
> of the ordinary GNU General Public License has
> appeared, then you can specify that version
> instead if you wish.) Do not make any other
> change in these notices.
>
> Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's
> all one license (GPL).
>
> > I have not check see if they are still breaking
> > more paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to
> > we or I should send a email say at they have
> > break gpl and they are not longer right to use
> > our code or my.
>
> As irate as you may be, nothing that you've
> brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of
> the GPL (although they could *potentially* be
> breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by
> adding their copyright notices and removing
> existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of
> patches).
>
> > I need get this out from my head and hart. I am
> > alot pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our
> > patch and put into there source there. without
> > telling how have wrote the code.
>
> I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People
> deserve credit and recognition for the work that
> they do.
>
> > That mean they are breaking some copyright laws.
>
> If you can find the particular law that applies,
> go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself,
> so I don't know what laws even apply to them --
> let alone if they're breaking those laws.
>
> > You can not take other source code and put into
> > another there without writen permitontion
>
> You contributed your code under the terms of the
> GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to
> say -- by your own choice of license, the source
> code is available to be copied, reworked, and re-
> released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that
> they do seem to be in compliance (though only by
> words and not in spirit).
>
> > or tell where the code comes from. if you look
> > at there source there you will think they have
> > wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper at
> > us that have write the patch for reactos.
>
>
> Sigh.
>
> -- Travis
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
6:07 p.m.
New subject: Pissoff hotlix
Quandary wrote:
2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must
be displayed. It
does not define what appropriate means. It does *not* say, anywhere,
that the copyright notice cannot be modified.
we as the copyright holders decide what's appropriate
6:25 p.m.
New subject: Pissoff hotlix
Quandary wrote:
Not only this. I believe that the meaning of this paragraph *implies* that
the copyright information cannot be removed or replaced by anyone except the
copyright holder(s). And if you come and add some code that you can add you
copyright *without* removing other's copyright(s).
But I am not a lawyer :o)
Oliver
PS: Sorry for the double post before. Something obviously went wrong. Was
not by intention :-[
--
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)
ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net
2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice
must be displayed. It
does not define what appropriate means. It does *not* say, anywhere,
that the copyright notice cannot be modified.
we as the copyright holders decide what's appropriate
7121
days inactive
7121
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Brandon Turner -
KJKHyperion -
magnus＠itkonsult-olsen.com -
Oliver Schneider -
Quandary