Seconded.
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-22 15:18]:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't also be?
The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source
I second the proposal below.
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software freedom, but at the same
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
equivalent of the kernel load_firmware interface, so that it's clear we
aren't talking about the
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi folks,
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as previously understood in
Debian? Several rounds of general resolutions have now given us answers
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 00:18]:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
2nd'd, also with Don's amendments.
Note that the 'in consultation' bit is still in - it could be still clearer
that the DPL may on his own take the decisions. But it's improved over the
prev. version.
cheers
-- vbi
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 18:46, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Steve,
I second most of the proposal, however:
[...]
THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[-project dropped]
I second the proposal below.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Yet another draft. There are major changes in this version, so
I think we'll need to have people who seconded re-second the version
that
Hi,
i second this proposal.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:18:04AM CEST, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi folks,
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as previously understood in
Debian? Several rounds
Hi,
i second this proposal.
(posted again, this time as signed eMail)
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:18:04AM CEST, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi folks,
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:46:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Yet another draft. There are major changes in this version, so
I think we'll need to have people who seconded re-second the version
that comes out of this discussion.
Seconded.
Changes:
+ Clarify
Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
4. determines that for the purposes
* Enrico Zini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 10:49]:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
4.
Le mer 23 août 2006 11:28, Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device
firmware shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
as a whole.
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 11:28]:
Josselin Mouette a écrit :
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 11:51 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
Also, we are currently converting firmware from the broken way (i.e.
included inside the kernel) to a better way. I don't think that it is a
good idea to make the requirements for the (technical and social) better
implementation
Though I understand your motivation, I prefer to have this GR
executable (hm, is this the right word?), i.e. a text that has as few
as possible disambiguties. If we say until it will become practical,
anyone can jump up even next week to say now it is practical. I
however want a statement
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 19:19 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth
discussing.
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
believe
* Steve Langasek:
- The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
in order to be converted into its final binary form; e.g., some
device firmware, videos, and graphics.
I would prefer if the term firmware would be defined or at least
explained in the GR.
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwifi is
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
- The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
in order to be converted into its final binary form; e.g., some
device firmware, videos, and graphics.
I would prefer if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
So, without further ado:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work
of software is very
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-23 00:18]:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwifi is
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
wouldn't
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:19:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
further response to TS checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
and his expectations
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
Anyone can claim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is freedom of software only important for the central
processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle which should be pursued by Debian by not distributing sourceless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A completely different issue is whether we take upstream's word for
GPL compability, or if we claim that something is not redistributable
because it contains a firmware blob *and* is licensed under the GPL as
a whole.
There is hardly a consensus on this, so I expect that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor. Whatever the project's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heavily disagree to this change. It makes the text unpredictable.
I support your disagreement for the reasons you explained and also
because separating the firmwares from the kernel would not solve the
problem of making them available to Debian users.
--
ciao,
Marco
Manoj wrote:
Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
define: computer program gives:
,
| * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
| used directly or indirectly in a
* Loïc Minier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060823 13:37]:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This is a good proposition, as it does not allow firmwares already in
non-free (eg madwifi) to go into main.
Madwifi contains non-free code that runs inside the kernel on the host
processor.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
opinion, be he
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:35:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I didn't say Peter's take didn't matter, because personally I consider
it self-evident and unarguable that it does matter. The followup was
only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was* Peter's take,
and not necessarily the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is freedom of software only important for the central
processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
battle
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Manoj wrote:
Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
define: computer program gives:
,
| * A computer program is a set of statements
On Aug 23, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
making obviously false claims like firmware are not programs ?
Firmwares are not programs *for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has been: what do the DFSG
require for works that are not programs as previously understood in
Debian?
Thank you for your proposal.
While I was thinking about a different proposal (both wider and narrower
in scope), I like
* Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 11:15]:
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I'd personally prefer the 4th point to read:
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what
Steve Langasek wrote:
The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time
ke, 2006-08-23 kello 10:30 +0200, Bas Zoetekouw kirjoitti:
3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such
as
images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without
requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and
4.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:49PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 11:15]:
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 09:48 +0100, Enrico Zini a écrit :
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:14:03AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
fibrechannel card, it's producing a
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
escribía:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett
escribía:
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's
required by it.
The DFSG apply to The Debian system. The social contract doesn't
define what The Debian system is. We could define it
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 15:24]:
I'd rather suggest to give a direct hint in time. Like until etch
releases, so that people wanting non-free firmware have to do the
techical stuff and not the people wanting control over what their
computer do.
Notice that we already did
Followups set to -vote; why are we cc'ing this across multiple lists?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El mi?rcoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
escrib?a:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:11:39 +0200 (CEST), Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is freedom of software only important for the central
processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:16:25 +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Manoj,
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, unless otherwise stated, the foundation document terms refer to
commonly understood meanings of words; looking to dictionaries,
encyclopedias, and common
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony
Towns escribía:
We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian
system requires, and to
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:38:07 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:28:35AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see
this being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
been:
* Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 15:46]:
Certainly, it's one of the purposes. But I don't think we've *lost*
anything by distributing binary firmware. Consider the cases:
1. Everything in hardware. You're not able to fix anything without a
soldering iron ... and good luck to
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this discussion preferred form of
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 16:40]:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
For this discussion
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
This means the missing of legal obstacles
Le mer 23 août 2006 13:35, Anthony Towns a écrit :
The followup was only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was*
Peter's take, and not necessarily the project's, and that debate is
still appropriate.
d-vote@ is a discussion list, and nothing here that isn't a vote
result can be
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 17:31]:
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a system (LinuxBIOS
will suffice for a very
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote:
It's my hope that this strikes a reasonable balance between respecting the
views of individual developers and advancing a viable policy for the project
so that we can move forward together on the goal of making each Debian
release a first-class,
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 17:31]:
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
4. Determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, source code for
device firmware will not be required until we have the technical means
to split them out in a convenient way for our users.
I'd rather suggest to give a direct hint in time. Like until etch
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
OK, never saw that drives. But where is the problem with them. Works
without needing any non-free stuff being put in the operating systems
and people might be able to replace it. No good example.
Wait. So by Non-free stuff
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:17:00PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
4. Determines that as a special exception to DFSG #2, source code for
device firmware will not be required until we have the technical means
to split them out in a convenient way for our users.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:37:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(FWIW, non-free udeb support should finally be working properly as of
next pulse)
From the ftp archive architecture side, or from the internal d-i side, or both
?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
* Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060823 18:18]:
In case it was not clear I was discussing things where firmware is also
loadable.
Why?
Because everything else has no relevancy to Debian at all.
Several drivers load microcode to graphics chipsets on startup.
But most of them still work
Anthony Towns wrote:
If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
for both people who need/want non-free things, and those
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
2. encourages authors of all works to make those works
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'm undecided whether it's a good idea to exclude them from the
distribution CDs and so on. How big is the problem of vital hardware
which won't work without firmware being copied to it? Should we split
non-free into non-free-hardware and
Sven Luther wrote:
What Steve and others who seconded him propose is to ship non-free firmware in
main, and declaring it as data, and thus disguising it as free software.
I guess that's a good statement, it's disquising firmware, not necessarily
as Free Software, but disguising it. We should
Joey Hess wrote:
. Ship a separate non-free CD.
iv
5. Implementing anything in 5 is a lot of work. Implementing it all
4
will be pretty atrocious. My guess is still 6 months of solid work to
implent a credible subset of 5, just like it has
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
You are silly in pretending that the DFSG and the widely shared
consensus among developers always
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:09:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
As i have warned you on irc, when you first asked the kernel team about this
GR, i think that the whole reasoning you propose is flawed, based on patently
wrong assumptions.
There is no way you can just decide that firmware is not
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:30:33AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
You wrote:
3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such
as
images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without
requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered
under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one
ever worried
[Sven Luther]
To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered some advice. He's quite right that my views
are not those of a
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:38:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:41:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
You are silly in
Hi Enrico,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:48:18AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
I second most of the proposal, however:
[...]
THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
Hi Florian,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
- The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools
in order to be converted into its final binary form; e.g., some
device firmware, videos, and graphics.
I
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:57:54PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
I have some problems, publically saying that binary firmware blobs
that most probably contain a lot of small
Hi,
I'd actually see some restriction with regard to interoperability
(i.e. some reasonably documented interface between the firmware and
the driver code), but getting this right is likely not worth the
effort.
Hmm, I'm not sure what that would look like at all; as someone else noted,
90 matches
Mail list logo
