Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
hardly be a valid proof of anything.
In some countries like in France it's truly accepted in court like a
valid proof, you just have to follow some rules. I don't think the
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As far as know, almost anything is acceptable in a UK court as valid
proof, apart from a few stupid exceptions, such as hearsay.
Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient
authority to be bound by the contents of a
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Electronic Communications Act 2000
7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically
associated with a particular electronic communication or
particular electronic data, and
Brian C [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If so, I can say with certainty that the FSF claims that the GPL is not
a contract. I attended their recent seminar on the GPL at Stanford Law
School (August '03 See http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html ) and
heard presentations from Exec. Director Bradley
Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the no warranty clause and
how to make it legally binding.
I'm not really sure what it means to make a no warranty clause
legally binding. If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
might be better off if you make
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To accuse someone of accusing someone of dishonesty is pretty serious,
too.
He was probably in a hurry and misunderstood. A polite correction
would do. There's no need to start accusing RMS of accusing people of
accusing him of dishonesty, not that I want to accuse
Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.
And what does that mean? May I download Emacs, not accept the GPL, use
it, run into problems with my business because of using it and then sue
the FSF?
Of course. You have the
Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The whole point of my hypothetical example is that I don't accept the
license and use the software nevertheless.
How could the GPL then be of any help?
People don't have to accept the GPL unless they are redistributing. I
would guess that the GPL helps because,
Daniel Isacc Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big
achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license
problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is
under the GPL .
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The
Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
copyright holder of both works, can distribute a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will
sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I pity all
those that have license their with the words
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EBCDIC is not a subset of ASCII, I'm pretty sure. Any translation is
going to be lossy.
IIRC, aside from the control codes (which are virtually unused anyway,
and thusly not an issue) it is.
If you look at the top left-hand corner of a British computer
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The GPL doesn't say the original author's preferred form for
modifications,
and that's not an error.
It doesn't need to; this is implicit in the nature of copyright
law. The license comes from the copyright holder, so it's their
preference which
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reasonable help is very unclear, and has no time limit on it. Am I
compelled to answer emails about it for the rest of eternity?
Because of the exponential decay in interest, answering e-mails for 3
years is probably about 80% of the work of answering
The following has little to do with Debian, but it is related to how
documentation should be licensed, which was discussed here recently.
I was recently asked to suggest a licence for some course material
(explanations, exercises, etc) that would allow people to adapt and
reuse the material and
Andrew Stribblehill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The sole maintainer collaborated with another author in writing the
program, and they have joint copyright. He would like to get it
relicenced under a standard licence but the other author has now
died. Is there any way to get it changed?
I would guess
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00304.html
...in which Edmund Grimley Evans says it's free.
Edmund Grimley Evans YES
That YES should be attributed to Thomas Bushnell rather than me.
I don't think it's free, though
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the author had accepted patches from others to version 1, he would be
stuck with keeping later versions under the GPL unless he got a licence
change OK'd by each of the contributors, or removed the contributed code.
However, check the licence on the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2. You're the author and want to prevent *yourself* from switching to
a non-free license in the future. Hmm? The best way would be to
decide not to do it, and then have the strength of character to
stick to your decision.
However, you might be
Baptiste SIMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
we are in this situation... and I want to prevent changin license by
holder of the copyright. So I'm looking for a solution, giving the
copyright to something, under some terms, etc...
Is there any solution ?
If you want advice about setting up a trust,
People don't edit program binaries usually, so let's take a realistic
example: I produce a bidirectional bilingual dictionary using some
Perl scripts that automatically generate LaTeX source for both sides
of the dictionary from a marked up version of one direction. However,
just before going to
Dmitry Borodaenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
even to its creator, 'form preferred for modification' should be chosen
from forms remaining in existence.
You shouldn't be choosing at all. You should provide everything that
is likely to be useful.
For example, if you automatically converted a Pascal
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
high-precision digital recording (with lots of random noise in
the low bits) and D is a compressed version: clearly A is
source of D,
I would argue that D is an excerpt of A.
If someone
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about the entire set of comments on the draft version of the
GFDL? [1] There was never a response to any of those comments.
When people ask for explanation of a license, we try to answer in
order to help them out. Criticism and demands are a
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright
in the listings of the phone book.
Please attack and destroy people with _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service
Co._[1].
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I said before: when the GNU GPL says this License and herein,
these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and
forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same
document.
Perhaps GPLv3 should solve this
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source +
patches, not binaries, and i will be going to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
A brief addendum to my previous reply: the non-free package qmail-src
might be a good model to follow as qmail has a similar restriction in
its licence.
Edmund
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the problem here is that the source code of sample data is
more sample data. These samples might again require their
sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous.
When distributing the source, you don't have to distribute the whole
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Whatever you may think of the specific merits of the droit d'auteur
system, please bear in mind that every legal system gives you rights
you cannot barter away. For instance, no modern legal system lets you
sell yourself into slavery, and I think that that
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
I could make a silly modificaton to your painting and avoid mentioning
that you created the original. This wouldn't harm your reputation.
Alternatively I could create a totally original
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you feel your trust has been betrayed, I think you should say so.
Insisting that your text be removed from the CPP manual is not the only
tactic at your disposal.
Certainly. If Zack were to ask for his own work (whose copyright is
assigned to the FSF) to
I understand that Adolf Hitler's copyright in Mein Kampf was
acquired by the state of Bavaria, who use it for suppressing the book.
If and when the copyright expires (2015 if the duration is not further
extended; in many EU countries copyright was extended from 50 to 70
years in 1995, with the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
He cannot do that. But his action of releasing the work under a free
license will have the coincidental effect that it becomes impossible
to violate the artistic integrity of the work, because the integrity
consists exactly in the work being free.
I'm not
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, you could certainly distribute P on its own if
you could reasonably claim that P is useful without GPLLib.
I'll further argue that P is not based upon GPLLib in any meaningful
manner; it includes absolutely no part of GPLLib.
If P is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Substantial modifications are permitted, and may be distributed, at
which point the modifier must either pay to ABC Software Inc the sum
of USD 1,000 for each occurrence of distribution by the modifier, or
grant to ABC Software Inc a permanent,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an interface to various implementations
of similar features, and the user selects which implementation to
use
3) Perl modules PM uses GPLLib to
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
that coffee might be hot).
Punitive damages are a stupid concept (does any country other than the
USA have them?) but
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that
technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian
Project impossible,
Pure FUD. See my rebuke of Nathanael Nerode's message that I just
sent.
I think the
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Differences: as far as free software is concerned, the big difference
between the two systems seems to be that, under the Droit d'auteur,
the author has a moral right which can *not* be waived or granted to
anyone else.
We already have OT in the
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We already have OT in the subject, so may I ask whether this moral
right ceases with the death of the author,
For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is
now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For software, I'm not
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
.\ The GNU General Public License's references to object code
.\ and executables are to be interpreted as the output of any
.\ document formatting or typesetting system, including
.\ intermediate and printed output.
The second paragraph is what I am most
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered.
However,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, doesn't the GPL say something on it being illegal to impose
additional
restrictions on distribution?
If the restriction is agreed upon by all copyright holders, then the issue
is murky; as far as I know, there's no consensus on this issue on
A Microsoft Word document is probably source code rather than
object code: people do edit Microsoft Word documents, and people
don't usually do automatic translations into Microsoft Word format
(though they do sometimes, for example when exporting from another
word processor).
Anyway, I don't
Leonardo Boselli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity
of work is -except for some works- inalienable.
I wonder what that means in the case of a work with several authors
and no identification of who wrote (and edited) each paragraph.
So a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you think that is a creation of a derivative work (and thus violates
the GPL), then I have a much bigger GPL violation for you to worry
about. It's with an interpreter known as bash.
Another example is the Linux kernel and GPL-incompatible programs
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list archives. Is this worth a
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider
the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I
have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons
I've described.
What do you mean by a free
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
differentiated approach.
Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
effects of the
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm thinking of licensing a program under the GPL, but I dislike the
FSF's overly restrictive concept that 'dynamic linking is modification'.
I want my program (and any derivative works) to be allowed to use
*accurately documented and published*
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more
justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see
JpGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now you're saying that we must be nice and polite to the PRC. Let's
all be friends! (And not pay attention to the people crushed by the
tanks.) I remember Tianenmen Square; it seems that the world has
mostly forgotten.
Worse things have happened
Personally I'm really worried about the case where astronomers prove
the existence of intelligent life in another solar system, but free
software developers lack the resources to make their patches available
to them and therefore cannot deploy modifications to the software.
I'm not sure that revocability of free software licences really is a
problem. However, if it is, this might help:
Free software authors and contributors could sell distribution rights
for their work with a contract something like the following.
| Contract made between name of free software
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
rights commonly thought of as natural rights or civil rights.
You'll note that the terms copyright, trademark, and patent do
not even appear
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for relevance to Debian, can one assume that the GPL absolutely
guarantees
DFSG free? (As I'm pretty sure the DFSG *does* guarantee me this
right).
No. Patents can get in your way. We have GPL software (e.g.,
gimp-nonfree, due to Unisys patents
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
*get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.
Do all download sites force you to read the licence
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
compiling it and running it.
If that's
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
compiling it and running it.
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server. This condition
would still be DFSG-free, I think, but you can't enforce it with a
pure
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server.
I think it would be unfree, and probably even undistributable by Debian in
non-free (we're not going to require an EULA to receive a
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
|You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
|at the public domain.
Public domain is free. One manpage calls it something like the only
true free.
Indeed.
|This package is distributed in a hope it will be useful, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
distinct set of properties. UnicodeData.txt is basically a listing of
those properties. If it is a copyrightable work, I see no way for a text
processing program to conform to Unicode
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think the point is that copyright as a verb only makes sense in a
historical, USA context. Most countries have never had a requirement
or even a possiblity of registering things for copyright, as I
understand it.
The OED lists copyright as a
I think the point is that copyright as a verb only makes sense in a
historical, USA context. Most countries have never had a requirement
or even a possiblity of registering things for copyright, as I
understand it.
Edmund
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You forgot to mention:
* The lack of source.
That can probably be worked around:
As I said elsewhere, they can't make it available, because they no
longer have it (um, I can't seem to find where I read that, so I might
Sorry, I didn't realise
I'm not an expert, but I hope my thoughts are helpful.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is a problem though, the current module contains code they control
plus a piece of proprietary code implementing a software ADSL decoder or
somethign such, which they don't have the sources for.
It
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wemm, but the driver minus the user space thingy is GPLed, and can be
distributed with a standard kernel, and there is no breach of the GPL as
long as nobody use it, right ?
The same thing would apply if you simply moved the proprietary part into
a separate
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Would the resulting list of words be a new creation, unencumbered by
any license attached to the spell-checker ? ;-)
No, this would be a derivative work of the Usenet postings, which are
copyright their authors.
You'd have to get permission from all Usenet
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think there is general consensus that splitting stuff into separate
components, distributed separately, is not a valid way of bypassing
the GPL. If you distribute stuff whose only plausible purpose is to
Well, if it is separated and there is a public api
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The way I read the GPL it is clearly a promise: I promise that *if*
you agree to my conditions about, e.g., not demanding an NDA from
people you distribute the code to, *then* - and not before - I will
give you my permission to copy.
Yet another problem
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My point exactly. A typical free software licence does not constrain
the future behaviour of the licenser. It's not a promise.
My point is that it *is* a promise: By licencing my work under GPL, I
promise to the world at large that anyone who subjects
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's a school of thought that says that an old free licence *can*
be retracted in common-law countries, because of the consideration
theory which basically says that unilateral promises cannot be
enforced against the person making the promise.
I have
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have heard of this principle in the context of contract law, but a
licence isn't a contract.
And what is it if not a contract?
I don't know. Anyone?
Also, I find the idea of a licence being enforced against the licencer
somewhat odd. It's not as if
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are going to be nitpicky about this, take into account that *for each
translation* in Debian (including manpages, GNOME/KDE help documentation or
whatever) we *need* a document stating that a given translation is
authorised *even* if the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in
main that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort
to ensure that everyting in main is DFSG-free, our users cannot make a
good-faith assumption that they can
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
source code and saying, don't use this gets around patent law is
fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is using that part of the
code distributed by Debian.
The only
I know nothing about patent law, US or otherwise, but I keep seeing
programs that are made freely available as source code, but not as
binaries, because they implement patented algorithms. In most cases
the intention is obviously that people will download the source,
compile it and use it. If that
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd like to say that I hope that it is the case that these are
un-copyrightable, but as of yet your arguments based on law don't seem
convincing.
I think ordinary, internationally recognised copyright applies to
artistic works, which a word list isn't. However,
J.B. Nicholson-Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I release these patches as fameware. If you use them in any non-private
way, give me credit. These patches are not to be sold for profit (heaven
forbid). They were free when I got them and so they shall remain.
Here's where my problem lies:
We [CEINTEC] know that this person has never oposed to the use of Debian
and, of course, that person guarantees that this won't happen in the future
(while the GNU philosophy is respected).
I don't this this guarantee is worth the paper it's printed on.
We [CEINTEC] also know that he/she
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, no, no. The preferred form is the preferred form for the author,
for *anyone*. It's what I would want to have, it's the real, actual,
genuine source.
The preferred form is found by considering the *actual* forms which
exist--and seeing which
If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
adding comments, I think you could then claim that what you have
created is now the
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You're the one amending selected from those forms which are available
to you. The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable
Mark Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A last point to mention is, that the original theme is based on a Microsoft
XP build 2410 look called Watercolor - this could be a licensing-problem.
I think the only way to solve this, is to contact Microsoft and ask them for
their permission Maybe you
As far as aspell-nl is concerned, we just have to assume that the word
list might be covered by copyright in at least some countries, so we
need a proper licence for it.
However, since a general discussion of word list copyright seems to
have ensued, what I don't understand is what happens if you
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the other person's word list is protected by copyright, and you
used that as a basis for your dictionary, you're making a
derived work.
That doesn't automatically follow. You're begging the question.
Edmund
As U.S. law becomes increasingly hostile to free software development,
we may need to revisit that interpretation.
Maybe, but the choice of law stuff is only there for settling certain
kinds of dispute.
Strange how the licenses that use choice-of-law provisions never bother
to
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As U.S. law becomes increasingly hostile to free software development,
we may need to revisit that interpretation.
Maybe, but the choice of law stuff is only there for settling certain
kinds of dispute. The fact that an activity is illegal in country X
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow
others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual
copying of bits between magnetic media.
Actually, it's not clear that this is true. For example, technically a
CD
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
have any capabilities to do anything.
This misses the point entirely so I'll try stating it another way.
latex essentially runs in a virtual machine provided by tex the program.
To me it looks like most of this stuff is not a GPL-violation, because
the firmware, although it is bundled with the kernel source, is not
linked with it: the relationship between kernel and firmware is more
like the relationship between editor and text being edited.
However, the stuff is
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah, here's an analogy that makes sense. Consider software that is an
anthology of works by several authors under several licenses. Clearly the
compliling (not in the software sense) author has performed significant
work. However, the license for the anthology
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Clause 9 seems pretty straightforward: if the copyright holder has
decided to allow it, you can use later versions of the license for his
code. It doesn't say that if he has given permission to allow this, you
can freely remove this permission from forks. It
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One solution to the problem, assuming that most of the violations are
in non-us, would be to not generate ISOs with non-us on them. This is
practical now that crypto-in-main is done. At least in theory, then,
OpenSSL (which is in main) would be
Still no answer to the question, but a couple of new references:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
The Copyright Act 1988 doesn't mention the Bible, though it does
mention Peter Pan, in Schedule 6.
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1996-02/0463.html
This
101 - 200 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
