Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
Please read:
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
software philosophy.
Please read:
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not
about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If
you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
Freedom is about
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any
generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should
be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence
unhurtful of them, but I'm having technical
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You said provided free of charge.
The GPL says licensed free of charge.
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will
come to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself)
It didn't come in my sleep.
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again on words. It seems what you sell is not open after all,
because you have not contributed back yet. Your selling the
future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell
it, is not open.
Your first criticism was that it was
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is
that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
(or our customers if they choose
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the open source way requires public availability,
technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have
to sleep on this.
Let's not confuse bazaar-like development with open source software.
Remember that The Cathedral and
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.
It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all
recipients, or give away to all recipients. I think
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
software.
Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free
of charge...
Neither license says that.
Duh?
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My employer sells commercial open source software.
It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the BSD license.
Do you really sell the software (not support, not buy-out)?
Yes, we sell the software. It comes with installation support,
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the 10th time someone is trying to say that you can sell open
source software. Some people including myself sustain that you can't,
in practice. (That is, you can charge, and even sell a couple of
copies, but you'll be out of business the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. [Ian] You sell your software which is BSD-licensed. Do you give out free or
evaluation copies under a different license, or perhaps crippled binary
versions? What kind of prices do you charge, so that we have some idea of the
barrier individuals would have to
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term open source be used only as
defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just open source
tout court to mean something different, but
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change
the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses
state that the distribution is completely free?
No. All OSI approved licenses state that if you
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I
strongly suggest that you not use that term.
... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific
terminology.
I personally think it is to everyone's advantage if the term
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the
html?
The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be
used with their permission. The permission required is described
here:
Larry Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I currently work on an open source project that uses the GPL for a
license. The project is written in PHP and uses modules/pluggins. The
project has an API that other developers can use to create these
modules/pluggins so they work within the framework
Tony Linde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can writing to an API force you to conform to that product's license? If
that was the case, a Java app running on Windows would be illegal and on
Linux would have to be GPLed.
A number of people have argued that if the only implementation of an
API is
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
A number of people have argued that if the only implementation
of an API is under the GPL, and if the API is not independently
described, nor managed by a standards organization, then
writing to that API
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
http://google.com/groups?threadm=YPep.5Y5.21%40gated-at.bofh.it
(Read the entire thread -- this is real fun ;-) )
I am already quite familiar with this discussion.
In your initial
Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a lawyer. Moreover, your questions relate to the issue of
when one piece of software is a derivative work of another, which is
not clearly settled.
If one has provided a version of readline that is not GPL, can one
argue that the intent of the
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
modifications, but they do it at redistribution time,
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with
deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous
idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues
doesn't do any good. It actually hurts open
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
break up and redistribute the individual object files into
different regions of the executable.
Do you seriously believe that such details/linking
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus.
I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments
which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list.
There are other theories that the GPL, while valid, does not have
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
the link. ...
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of
licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
Biggest problem of all here - who in all of
Zooko O'Whielacronx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Simple Permissive License is most similar to The MIT License. The MIT
License does not suffice for my needs because it is too long and complex for the
programmers that I work with to read.
Personally, I recommend that you tell your
For those who didn't see it on Slashdot, here is a good discussion of
open source/free software licenses, from Mark Webbink, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel of Red Hat. He is a lawyer, and this
article is written for lawyers, but is clear and straightforward.
Jan Dockx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the
difference between BSD and public domain?
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the public
Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem here is exactly that. Assignment is a double edged
sword. Assignment makes it easier for one individual to litigate
against people who violate the license (which means violating the
copyright). But it also permits the assignee to change the
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed
code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors
either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the
license?
It's fairly common, though
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I say 'viral' I do so without any prejudice
whatsoever.
The word itself is somewhat prejudicial, though, as rather few people
have positive connotations for the word ``virus.''
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
license; once it is attached to code, it can't be removed. The BSD
license is not sticky; it can be removed (or at least the most
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with
Sean's license being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms,
and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?
Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant. I
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
§ 51(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are
entitled to
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns
me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over
others.
Who, for example? If those people aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not,
for example), then they only have
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being
OSI-approved.
Interesting. Is this because you believe that the OSD is incomplete
and that it should disallow more licenses, or is this because you
believe that OSI approval should not be
Bobbi Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are quite comfortable with hosting companies taking this free code and
offering it to the web designers/developers that are hosting with them.
However, we would like those designers/developers to see an attribution to
our company.
So my question
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
changes that are available only under the GPL.
Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary
product are changes that are only available to the authors
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Businesses who create
commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT
licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart business for
Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the
GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per
se, and more concerned about the -community- being
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I won't comment on what other people have already commented on.
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most
likely open and available to the public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Ian
--
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always
being OSSAL.
This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright
law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over
other codebases used in
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since
there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from
GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are
doing.
Some, not all. Just to keep the
Mike Wattier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance,
plain and simple.
Sure, I know that. (I've been in the open source business for 13
years now; I really do know something about it. And I do mean
business literally, as it's how
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits.
The reason for these addions being that as a language
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers
(which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of
development for businesses.
Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many
years at a business
Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not your license (made by you).
How can you submit other people's license for
approval?
I don't see anything wrong with doing this. What is your concern?
Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Tony Butterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My motivation is in finding an open-source model for software that
promotes all the well known and discussed aims of open source but that
allows a small independent startup to create a revenue stream.
I am working on a provocative short paper
Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will it be better if you take out the word perpetual and
add another section on duration of license something like this:
16. Duration. This license shall be in force until
the expiration of copyright in original work or the
Miller, Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have searched and searched online for an explanation to this question, so
if I have missed a faq that details this please accept my apology and point
me in the right direction.
Well, there's this, if it helps:
Erik Ostermueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm planning on releasing an open-source product,
probably under the GNU license.
Must I do anything in particular to insure that I can
safely/legally violate the terms of the license PRIOR
to the product release?
Assuming that you hold the
Mitchell Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The goals are to be a broadly adopted, high-quality PIM on all
platforms, and to ensure that Chandler is always available on an open
source basis to those who want it. We also hope to generate a piece
of the funding that will be necessary to make
Mitchell Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Open Source Applications Foundation (http://www.osafoundation.org)
is planning the 0.1 release of Chandler (a personal information
manager) shortly, hopefully by the end of April. OSAF's plan of
record for licensing is to follow the model used by
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:32 am, Gunther Schadow wrote:
- The problem of the BSD license is that it allows commercial
parties to take the source code away and contribute little, and
take away the freedom of their customers to use improved
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However - the issue is not talking about .exe or .com files, but
pluggin objects using the well known and publish API of the Linux Kernel.
Why do you keep harping on this particular issue? Is anybody telling
you that you can not distribute your
PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assume that there is a standard API defined in a spec.
One author writes an application G that conforms to that spec (using the
API; I think of this as sitting on top of the API) and offers this under the
GPL.
A second author writes
PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only issue is whether G+H is a derived work of G, and that seems
obvious.
I think there is an additional issue, and one for which the resolution is
not necessarily obvious: to what sort of combinations of G and H does the
Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you don't create a work based upon one or more preexisting works
then you have simply not created a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. §101.
How in the world does an independently-written piece of software that
communicates with another
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an interest in not
restricting people.
Other than your customers, presumably. Restrictions cut both ways.
In what way would a restrict cut both ways here?
Binary only products
Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what if most of the Linux kernel is loadable modules? Probably
Linux is not a derivative work of those loadable modules, but instead a
compilation or collective work. The GPL doesn't require you to publish
the source code of either of those
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses.
And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal
review in a court.
Not really. The GPL relies more on public opinion than it does on the
force of law.
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The inherent standard in court for copyright is ownership and control. The
GPL negates your individual permissions. In addition, you revoke all rights
to control distribution. Sure you can say that there is a copyright, but to
me its like claiming
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the
code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll,
whoever owns the code?
It belongs to the copyright holder.
I've written free software myself. I own the
Emiliano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Nelson wrote:
I am totally uneducated in the matters of license legalities, but is it
actually illegal to circumvent a license? If the wording of the license
allows a particular use, will the court read the letter of the license
or
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Stallman writes:
It would be wrong to require publication of modified versions
that are used privately, but inviting the public to use a server
is not private use.
I'm not sure that the GPL-using community is going to agree with you
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
whether the GPL is appropriate to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or some
other more appropriate mailing list?
Disagreed.
This is license-discuss.
GNU GPL is an OSI recognized license (in fact, the first in the list in
the website)
I agree that
DeBug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I took a look at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
and read this:
If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain.
False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly
puts
it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
DeBug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My question is what are the restrictions in lesser GPL ?
In other words what is the difference between
a) I write software and give it away for free without copyrighting it
b) I write software copyright it and issue it under lesser GPL
The restrictions in the
Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of
making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as
the license is
It's common practice to quote part of the e-mail to which you are
replying, as I am doing here, in order to maintain some context in the
conversation.
It is also polite to set your mailer to not send HTML mail to a
mailing list such as this one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many thanks for
Daniel MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The result is that forking in GPLd projects is rare, and
reconcilliation has been known to happen. The Alan Cox (ac) Linux
kernel series is a persistant, but narrow, fork of Linus's own
development. emacs/xemacs is probably the most
Greg Herlein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
or Free.
Perhaps not Free. Why not open source? You can read, modify,
and redistribute the source. The only caveat is that you have to
send the author a copy of the
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Jun 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Thus, I submit that either qmail's license be approved as an
OSD-conformant license, or OSI consider whether clause #4 needs, er,
clarification. It's hard to argue that neither is the case.
So you
Carter Bullard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is the thread.
Ah. There really aren't any arguments there, just concerns. I
suggest that you simply reply as James suggests, pointing out that a
nearly identical license was accepted by the OSI, and see what reply
you get to that.
Ian
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, given that two messages bounced for a large number of people, I would
wager that the problem was actually on the mail server side - a
temporarily down DNS server perhaps, or resource problems, or what have
you - and since they only affected two
"Ryan S. Dancey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"free software" is software that is licensed to you using terms that
prohibit you from imposing a requirement of the payment of a fee on the
right of recipients of the software to make copies or redistribute the
software.
I don't agree. The term
"Ryan S. Dancey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems axiomatic to me that any license seeking to comply with the OSD
must have explicit instructions detailing the responsibility of each party
to the license (meaning anyone who distributes the software) to make the
source available when they
"Ryan S. Dancey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So my question remains: Is the OSD as written too specific regarding its
requirement that the source code be commonly and easily available to
recipients of the software?
I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but I think the
answer is no:
"Lou Grinzo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My solution is for some group of people (like us) to collectively assemble a
list of every permutation of activity we can think of involving
software--sell it modified/unmodified with/without source, linked/not linked
with non-free/open SW, bundled/not
"Smith, Devin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GNU GPL is particularly difficult to interpret,
probably because it was written by a non-lawyer.
The GPL was extensively reviewed by the FSF lawyers.
I personally have always found the GPL to be clear.
The main problem I've seen people have with
Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try
to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not
everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc.
I think most people on this list
Eric Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It may certainly be possible to have a registration fee for Open Source
software. I am not denying that. However, until such a time as the
registration fee is paid, the software cannot be considered Open Source.
David Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.
Well, I kind of think it would. But the way to test that is to
propose a license which requires a license fee, and to try
"Karsten M. Self" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
Support this statement with a citation and/or
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
the same library?
Dave J Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, since glibc is available as a dynamic library, most uses of glibc
do not conflict with the LGPL. The only way to conflict would be link
against the static version of glibc and distribute the resulting
binary without distributing the unlinked
Red Hat has announced that Michael Tiemann has joined the OSI board:
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=RHATscript=410layout=-6item_id=147351
I'm glad to hear it.
Ian
Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a
public, and now widly accepted definition of it.
No, it wasn't.
That was the whole point behind choosing the term ``open source.'' It
didn't carry any existing freight. See, e.g.,
Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In any event, I've been tempted to start an information-clearinghouse
site listing the leading formats for various types of data files
See http://www.wotsit.org/
It's probably not everything you want, but it's a start at what you
seem to describing.
Ian
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning
a GPLed program.
As others have noted, this is not the case: the GPL does require
permission to run the program.
From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the
OSD is
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I want to run your program on several different computers, then
removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me.
With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement
is. I do.
You do have to
Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open
source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it
is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and
other game publishers just so I
Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
But if you look at
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring.
Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your
license does not allow
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for
License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think
that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay
fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
