Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Please check #139437... Thanks, Mt. -- Si les grands esprits se rencontrent, les petits esprits, eux, se cognent. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Please check #139437... ... and #79538 and #123074. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Well, since there are these other issues being raised (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think? Well, if you insist ;-) Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free Documentation License is Free) the whole purpose of the common license area was to reduce the file space consumed by multiple copies of the same license. Thus if two packages use the license it is cost effective to place a copy into the common area. With respect to the freeness of this license. It would be a real shame for Debian to declare this a non-free license, as much of the GNU documentation currently making the move to this license would have to go into non-free... Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant. 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we can make demands for good documentation. As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read. Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months. In a nutshell: 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections. Note that your license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially DFSG-free when none of the license options are exercised. So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist. If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Dale Scheetz wrote: So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html that that is not true of the GFDL because The GFDL says that invariant sections must cover only topics of how the work relates to the authors or publishers. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... These cases are not the same. A license with unexercised options is very different from a license with proprietary clauses (which don't happen to be enforced). Again, though: Even if the GFDL options are exercised the result is not a non-free license, but a license reasonably similar to other free licenses already endorsed Debian. Although the GFDL differs from the GPL in the way it imposes liberty-enhancing restrictions, the restrictions seem to me to be neither excessive nor unclear nor especially vulnerable to misuse. If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense. Let this be a recommendation to others to read the debate that already took place on debian-devel. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html -- Thomas Hood signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
begin Dale Scheetz quotation: On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read. Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months. In a nutshell: 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections. Note that your license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially DFSG-free when none of the license options are exercised. So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. No. Specific optional aspects of the licenses, which are required by the licenses themselves to be declared in the license notice contained in the covered document, are non-free. The licenses can be used to make documents DFSG-free, and I believe DFSG/OPL documents are essentially DFSG-free by default, since the conflicts arise only when these options are explicitly invoked by the copyright holder in the license notice. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... Let's try this again, as you seem to have misunderstood what Branden wrote. If a document is covered by GFDL and contains no Cover Texts or Invariant Sections, then that document is, according to Branden, uncontroversially DFSG-free. (I say according to Branden because I don't read debian-legal either, nor have I taken the time to check the archives.) If a document is covered by OPL, and the license notice does not declare any non-DFSG-free options, then that document is, according to Branden, uncontroversially DFSG-free. This has nothing to do with enforcing license terms after the fact, so your claim that any proprietary license becomes free ... [if] not [e]nforced by the author is a complete non sequitur. It has, instead, to do with how the license is applied to the document in the first place. If a GFDL document has Cover Texts or Invariant Sections, those sections must be explicitly identified by the copyright holder in the document's license notice (I believe this is a requirement of the GFDL itself). If no such sections are identified, then the document is fully modifiable, and therefore DFSG-free. Why you find this hard to understand is a bit of a mystery to me. Craig pgpI1NENdpLGL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses. The simple fact is, a work licensed under version 1.1 of the GNU FDL with no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections is clearly and plainly DFSG-free. A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable. Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free. You can call the GNU FDL free or non-free due to either or both of the above. Which you decide is far less important to Debian than how the GNU FDL is actually applied to works in real life. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... I find it ... surprising that you're unfamiliar with the issues surrounding the Artistic License and its reasonable copying fee. Actually, since you usually opine on issues before educating yourself on them, I'm not surprised. :) The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Under that logic, the GNU GPL is non-free because it is not a modifiable document. Debian, however, takes a pragmatic approach to license documents; we care about licenses only insofar as they apply to actual software that we package. We also care about licenses as they are enforced by the copyright holder, not about how they could have been exercised by the copyright holder. That said, Debian does occasionally serve to act in an advisory capacity to people seeking to adopt license terms that express their desires clearly. Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist. *shrug* Then your beef is with the people who author such licenses. The GNU FDL and OPL both have optional parts that the copyright holder can elect not to exercise. For that matter, the GNU GPL does too. You can always add a rider to the license, for instance by permitting your work to link against an old version of the Qt library. If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense. If this is the kind of logic you're going to try to bring to -legal, perhaps the list is better off without your participation. -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpazrOtgynxb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist. No, that's not the case. Any options are chosen by the author at the time of licensing the work. It's not a matter of enforcement, it's a matter of choosing what variant of the license to use on a specific piece of documentation. This may mean that piece of documentation using the FDL with certain options may not be free, and that a piece of documentation using the FDL with different options may be free. Think of the FDL as a meta-license, and specific instances as used in packages as the real license. -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit : So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... So, you mean that the license allows that, after being modified, the document can become non-free. Using the same logic, the BSD license is non-free too. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote: So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author... So you have never checked your packages to make sure that the code within is all above board and licensed under the license it says it is? When a particular instance of a license can be considered free by our standards, why should we place a blanket rejection on all possible permutations of that license? We, as developers, should be able to recognise the difference between a document with and without invariant sections, and identify the documentation as non-free or free respectively under our current set of guidelines. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg The Tao that is seen Is not the true Tao - until You bring fresh toner. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable. Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free. ^ Hrm. DFSG-*non*free, that is. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux |let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous pgpDwMcQp1qKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto: On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory? but because it seems a blatantly non-free _software_ license but maybe it is a blatantly free _documentation_ license :) -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it. Poorly. -- from Karl M. Hegbloom .signature signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area? Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this license, then? I can't answer any of your questions ;-) What I do know is: 1. The GFDL is a published license of the FSF, intended for use by documentation. 2. The documentation provided by gmp-4.0.1 is now GFDL. This indicates a move by GNU to use this license more broadly. 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant. 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we can make demands for good documentation. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory? You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-) I suppose this stems from the invarient section clause in the GFDL? While this declaration is broader than the same feature in the GPL, I don't see the problem. The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely free speech is to continue to be protected. The technical material can then be left modifiable as is needed and useful to such matherial. What would be a more suitable Free Documentation License in your view? Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dale On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area? Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this license, then? Dale I can't answer any of your questions ;-) Well, since there are these other issues being raised (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think? manoj -- Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?! Bullwinkle J. Moose Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory? You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-) I suppose this stems from the invarient section clause in the GFDL? I'm more concerned with the additional publisher requirements. They have been relaxed a little with 1.1 and reworded slightly in the draft for 1.2, but I feel it's still a problem. I don't like the invariant sections much, but the draft of 1.2 seems to resolve the major concerns I had. While this declaration is broader than the same feature in the GPL, I don't see the problem. The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely free speech is to continue to be protected. The technical material can then be left modifiable as is needed and useful to such matherial. History reads as ChangeLog in most programs and is not invariant, but AFAIK it can be cut off at a certain point for brevity if you like. What would be a more suitable Free Documentation License in your view? I would certainly be less eager to argue over the 1.2 version if the FDL when it's released since it applies a sanity check to section 3 and clarifies a little the named sections which may deserve special treatment. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have chainsaw will travel Knghtbrd Overfiend - BTW, after we've discovered X takes all of 1.4 GIGS to build, are you willing admit that X is bloatware? = Overfiend KB: there is a 16 1/2 minute gap in my answer acf knghtbrd: evidence exists that X is only the *2nd* worst windowing system ;) pgpptnllsl6vb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant. 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we can make demands for good documentation. As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read. Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months. In a nutshell: 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections. Note that your license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially DFSG-free when none of the license options are exercised. Read the archives of debian-legal for supporting references. -- G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux |belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpD6SM16B1ml.pgp Description: PGP signature
The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? No, it would be premature. There's a draft for a new version up for review at the FSF site. There's also a still-open discussion about whether the GFDL is free enough for Debian if Invariant Sections are used. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory? -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] glDisable (DX8_CRAP); doogie cat /dev/random | perl ? shaleh doogie: it is also a valid sendmail.cf doogie :) * knghtbrd hands doogie a senseless-use-of-cat award * shaleh wants to try it but is afraid pgpLuubATWGzo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area? Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this license, then? manoj -- I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception. Groucho Marx Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
