Why not modify chromium to read the api keys from a file, rather than
building them into the binary? The file could then be put in a separate
package. If necessary in non-free.
This would have the additional benefit that those of us who want
chromium to under no circumstances send every word we
Alexey Eromenko wrote:
Hello Debian People !
Debian 6.0 (Squeeze) ships packages [2] that integrate with web services
(called in modern term 'Cloud Computing' or SaaS,
'Software-as-a-Service' if you will), such as the Facebook API.
What if Facebook decides to close down it's APIs tomorrow ?
Simon McVittie wrote:
Not that I know of; judging by putting this wording into Google, only Joey
uses it. I called it the ikiwiki basewiki license above, but I don't think
that's necessarily a good way to refer to it out of context. The rest of
ikiwiki is not under this license (it's mostly
I may need to package liblinebreak, as it seems that new versions of
fbreader will use it. Thought I'd run the licenses past legal, though
I think I've convinced myself they are free.
The main license is BSD-ish:
7 * Copyright (C) 2008 Wu Yongwei wuyongwei at gmail dot com
8 *
9 *
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
A game where targets move across the screen to a predetermined point
or line, where the player hits a button/key/mouse click as the target(s)
crosses that point or line, and gets points.
Any thoughts on that?
Nice description of space invaders.
--
see shy jo
MJ Ray wrote:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-05/msg00072.html
My limited understanding is that ScummVM games are software whose
preferred form of modification is the game files as distributed. Since I
have never actually modified a ScummVM game, I am unsure as to the
Don Armstrong wrote:
Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and debhelper
was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
Why? debhelper is also developed in vim[1], I don't have to ship vim with
it, why would I need
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
operation to perform.
I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
pointless subthread. There's no
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
Preferable by whom? That is a matter of personal preference and taste,
Mike Hommey wrote:
However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
whitespace-free version.
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program made
by its upstream author. Perhaps the debhelper
znc contains a Csocket file with this license. I wonder if the requirement that
source code must be made available for no more than a nominal fee is
acceptable.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification,
* are permitted provided that the following
olive wrote:
By the way are you aware that for pi none of your proposal is true
Um, yes, that was sort of the point.
(exept maybe Choice 4 which is unclear). pi is transcendental, and in
particular irrational (which implies that you cannot write it with a
final number of decimal). Your
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2]
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Academic Free License 2.1 has been discussed here before and is
IIRC non-free, how about version 1.1? License follows:
Academic Free License
Version 1.1
This Academic Free License applies to any original work of authorship (the
Original Work) whose owner (the Licensor) has placed the following
olive wrote:
The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
state among other:
[...]
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
[...]
(see the full license at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
for the sources?
A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matter
Hector Blanco wrote:
My name is Hector Blanco.
I developed a game called 'Debian vs Pimientos' in which you
have to kill peppers, using the Debian logo as a ship.
Well, more info is here:
http://www.neopontec.com/en/games/index.php?sec=gamegid=1
Some persons commented me that this would be
Karsten M. Self wrote:
debian-legal and DPL added to distribution.
I'm afraid that by escalating this unnecessarily, as well as resorting
to certian rhetoric (for which I cannot be bothered to do a
point-by-point rebuttal), you've convinced me it's best I bow out of the
discussion, permantly.
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Is the GPL in the .udeb (or elsewhere in d-i)?
No.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Henning Makholm wrote:
found in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright, which turn out
What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
source which says that the program is covered by the GPL. As far as I
can see from a random sample (src/fnmatch.c) from the source
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
redistributeable as they are licensed under the GFDL but do not
include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially
Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
thread,
you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked
Joey Hess wrote:
Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
the message you replied to!
I consider myself a reasonable
MJ Ray wrote:
As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
otherwise.
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-12 18:40:36 +0100 Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you're making a viable argument.
I was trying to summarise the argument as described to me. I think
it's rude of you to ignore that and shoot the messenger. I said in the
DWN-submitted
http
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the d-i build-depends on
miboot, which is in contrib, and try to find a better solution for next
releases.
This is the first I've heard of this. Has the sarge-ignore status of the
GFDL docs really created such a slippery
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, we had it in woody boot-floppies, it seems.
I will be charatable and assume that was an accident, similar to many of
the dozens of other non-free peices of software we have shipped in
woody, and removed from sarge.
Also, maybe we should remove d-i from main altogether,
Rick Thomas wrote:
I got as far as the point where the d-i tries to install a
bootloader. It died there because there is no boot loader for the
oldworld subarchitecture.
It's good to know that it got that far.
Declare that all OldWorld machines must have a minimal MacOS
partition with
Sven Luther wrote:
If i came up with the following :
1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
sector from some kind of more formal
Branden Robinson wrote:
I heard (on IRC) that someone wrote some DFSG-free WAD files for Quake
-- some sort data set to facilitate a World War II battle simulation.
If this fact is validated, the quake packages might be able to be moved
to main. This is definitely something that can happen
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 + Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there seemed other
Ryan Underwood wrote:
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
license.
The original license supplied with the wolf3d sources (released in 1995)
seems to be the same license that the proprietary
Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Suppose you (Mr. Foo) write an essay: Why the BSD license is best, by
Mr. Foo. No matter what copyright license your essay is under -- even
if it's in the public domain -- nobody can modify it to Why the GPL
license is best, by Mr. Foo. That's fraud (misrepresenting
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
This Open Software License (the License) applies to any original
work of authorship (the Original Work) whose owner (the
MJ Ray wrote:
(And thus makes it easier to
apply pressure to change the licence).
Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result
of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before?
Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening. I
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
respect?
We do not ignore any patent.
Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
--
see shy jo
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
write a free equivalent.
Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
likely to convey a message to the author of that program: WAKE UP!
When the author wakes up and realizes that their
Branden Robinson wrote:
It's annoying, but does not really make it not free, I hope. Remember
that we dealt with the FSF snail mail address changing; said address is
in the GPL and is in copyright statements that point to the GPL. Many
licenses and statements of copyright contain
Branden Robinson wrote:
4. The location of the original unmodified document be
identified.
BUG: Walter Landry has pointed out:
[The GNU FDL] requires me to preserve the network location of where
Transparent versions can be found for four years. Even if it is
Alan Woodland wrote:
Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment
Quake 1 was in debian before. I forget why we dropped it, but I think it
had little to do with licensing and a lot to do with the maintainer at
the time. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this license was discussed a/ long
Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part
of a text document?
I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a
document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in
base64 encoding. I'm not sure what browser
Alex Romosan wrote:
now, this can also be interpreted as anthony saying debian was founded
before the WHY-FREE manifesto so the manifesto couldn't be our raison
d'être. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning
(and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no
Anthony Towns wrote:
As such, we cannot accept works that include Invariant Sections and
similar unmodifiable components into our distribution, which unfortunately
includes a number of current manuals for GNU software.
It may be worth noting that GNU manuals are hardly the only thing
effected
Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that
a standards body officially approves the specification, which
would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to
be distributed
It doesn't translate that to
Sam Hartman wrote:
Russell == Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
Russell edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
Russell think he was wrong about the intent of the
Russell no-discrimination
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
Could you do us all a favour and save our time by not dragging
Eric Baudais wrote:
The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
to the author's relationship to the document.
[...] Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
one). [...]
Andrea Borgia wrote:
Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
And what are we then supposed to do when there is a security hole in
pine, or a bad interaction with something else in debian that
Jeff Licquia wrote:
To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
should be no problem with compatibility.
I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
give it a try.
It's
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:15:07PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified)
Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
example of a DFSG-free licence.
I wish we could back away from that.
Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Freeswan (the user space daemon and the kernel module) needs Eric Young's
libdes to work.
I know from researching for mindterm that version 3.06 of Eric Young's
libdes (from 1993) was licensed under the GPL. I don't know how much the
libdes library has changed since then,
Walter Landry wrote:
Did Mindterm make any modifications to the code after they learned of
the new licensing conditions? If so, they might have thought that
they had to put modifications under the new license.
Well it's a little bit hard to tell if they modified it at some point;
the
the overall point.)
I have attached an attempt at updating mindterm's copyright file with
this information.
--
see shy jo
This is a Debian prepackaged version of mindterm.
This package was put together by Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED], using
sources from:
http://www.mindbright.com/products/mindterm
Walter Landry wrote:
What is the license on the java modifications by Mindbright? The
snippet above doesn't make it clear, but the usual custom is to place
modifications under the same license as the original. In which case
mindterm is still undistributable :(
What java modifications? They
Branden Robinson wrote:
I wonder if it possible to reconstruct the existing mindterm code base
from all the known DFSG-free code using a recipe. This recipe could
then be handed to the FTP admins.
Only if you have an automatic C to java translator program..
An example closer to home for you
Steve Langasek wrote:
This is what puzzled me about this question. If the old code was C and
the new code is entirely Java, are there enough recognizable portions of
the old code left to be able to call mindterm a derivative work of
libdes? Algorithms are not copyrightable, and there are
Steve Langasek wrote:
These two situations seem quite analogous to me.
Seems like quite a stretch to me.
Does placing either condition (monetary compensation, or warranting
that they're not planning to destroy the Earth) on access to
particular mirror sites violate the licenses of software
Steve Langasek wrote:
Currently, the Debian installer (boot-floppies/dbootstrap) already asks
whether to put non-free in the apt sources.list. It seems to me that
creating a separate set of install disks for the GNU distro would be
sufficient to eliminate this question and configure only
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep
Stephen Turner wrote:
Actually, my understanding was that debian-legal couldn't agree whether it
was free or not, although I agreed to change it so that we could all agree
that it was free.
Yeah.
An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
moment, and I was
[ Is Bram on this list? ]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Peter writes a GPLd program. The John distributes a copy of the GPLd
program to Mary, and he must give Mary the source. He does not have
to give the source to Peter. He and Mary are allowed to keep the
changes entirely secret if they
Branden Robinson wrote:
START OF PROPOSAL
1) A copyright holder is permitted to withhold permission to modify or
remove copyright notices upon a work, or parts of a work, under
copyright by that holder. Permission to modify or remove copyright
notices not used as such (i.e., as examples),
Stephen Turner wrote:
I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
program, and reasonable does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
the DFSG perfectly well to me.
The way I and
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
violating the license, and that makes analog a
It seems we have to question this license from time to time. I wish it
was somthing better understood like the GPL. Anyway, here is the current
complaint, with my comments at the end:
- Forwarded message from Dwayne C. Litzenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Package: analog
Version: 2:5.1-1
Neil Conway wrote:
Basically, the author is objecting to the Debian policy of referring to
the system-wide copy of the GPL; he is arguing that a copy of the GPL
should be included with his package, which is GPL'd. He makes some
pretty good points, but Debian policy disagrees with him.
RMS has
John Galt wrote:
Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian FAQ sometime. They'll give you two
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:34:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
We usually allow some time for license issues to be resolved. In the
extreme case of KDE it was more than a year :)
You forget: KDE was removed from the archive during
Branden Robinson wrote:
Hock would appear to be a slang word of more recent origin that most
public-domain dictionaries, sadly. If I hock my guitar, it means I go to
the pawnbroker's and use it as collateral for a short-term loan.
Well, it's in wordnet:
v : give as a guarantee [syn: {pawn},
Mindterm is a implementation of ssh in java, that can run in popular web
browsers, on popular operating systems, letting you get at slightly less
popular but much more fun and rewarding things in a fairly secure way,
without fiddling around with actually installing anything on said popular
I had an amusing thought last night. This is a GPL'd java applet -- so
for it to be useful, you must put the binary up for download by clients
-- in other words, redistribute it. Well, that triggers GPL point #3,
which requires that the source code be made available to, at least by a
written
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimately, it is the page author's responsibility to provide a link to
source, not the server operator's. One way could be to place the
mindterm jar into a world-readable location, then have a mindterm-src
deb which places the source tarball/zip (or both; but I'd
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
Look up tort in a legal dictionary.
Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
What?
Somebody needs to take it away from you before you hurt someone. ;-)
--
see shy jo
Branden Robinson wrote:
Look up tort in a legal dictionary.
Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
--
see shy jo
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
You quote wrong. It says:
| 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
| forbidden by this licence.
Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There
it is Any use
He's correct, the current part of the license in
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:50:19 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Analog licence violates DFSG
Reply-To: [EMAIL
David Starner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
The Analog licence states:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden
by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
committing the action.
This provision of the licence blatently violates
SCOTT FENTON wrote:
Hi. I'm working on putting together a booklet of open source licences
with the DFSG in the appendix, and I need to know, what's the copyright
on the DFSG? Can I typeset it in LaTeX, or do I need special permission
for that? And if I do need permission, where do I get it?
SCOTT FENTON wrote:
Hi. I'm working on putting together a booklet of open source licences
with the DFSG in the appendix, and I need to know, what's the copyright
on the DFSG? Can I typeset it in LaTeX, or do I need special permission
for that? And if I do need permission, where do I get it?
Clay Crouch wrote:
So, to the brass tacks. Is requiring payment for commercial exploitation
considered 'discrimination' WRT the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
^^^
selling or
Clay Crouch wrote:
The license does not restrict the _distribution_ of it. It can be
sold as part of an aggregate.
So, I am not sure Clause 1 (Free Redistribution) of the DFSG applies.
It is Clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) that
troubles me And I am not %100 sure
http://www.491.org/projets/api/
Shocking.
--
see shy jo
(This is not intended to be published in LWN, and I'd just as soon drop
the Cc.)
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
But my impression is that not every debianized source tree can be used with
the debuild command. For example, can you use debuild with the debianized
pine source tree that is distributed with
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
When I build pine debs from debianized
source I certainly have no intention of distributing them to anyone else,
and I believe this would be true for virtually every ordinary Debian user
who built KDE debs on their machine. Especially if Debian specifically
raised the
Mike Bilow wrote:
I think the license is basically pretty good, but clause 5 is a
showstopper.
Clause 5:
5. The Intel Software provided in binary form contains confidential
information of Intel regarding technical aspects of the Itanium
processor. You must use the same degree of care to
Paul Serice wrote:
DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU.
So is a whole slew of software[1]. That doesn't mean RMS is personally
responsible for what it may say in some manual somewhere, nor does it
mean what it says in some manual somewhere has any bearing on the
interpretation of the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
a logical nexus here.
Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
document.
Why?
Because, as near as I can
Adrian Bunk wrote:
I think this is DFSG-free and can go to main.
Would you care to justify that remark? You could start by telling us
how it doesn't conflict with sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the DFSG. (Have
you _read_ the DFSG?)
--
see shy jo
- Forwarded message from peter karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:35:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: peter karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft patent
Organization: /universe/earth/europe/sweden/vasteras
Hi!
Since the original
Jules Bean wrote:
Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
upload them to main. After all, they're not software, so who gives a hoot
if they violate the DFSG?
It does, once again, re-raise the issue of
Jordi wrote:
Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I agree it is for the non-free archive. But does anyone see a larger
problem, which would prevent it to get into Debian?
The non-free archive is not part of Debian.
--
see shy jo
Gosh, I hate to follow up to this post 3 times, but I keep thinking of more
to say.
Anthony Towns wrote:
The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a
intellectual property isn't perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's,
why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure,
Anthony Towns wrote:
The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
something. For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone
Anthony Towns wrote:
The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
something. For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone
Joey Hess wrote:
AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent
people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie,
would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it
posted to /. with your name on it!?)
In case you aren't
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
I also don't entirely see how content falls under the social contract..
That 'S' in DFSG stands for software after all!
Well, if you don't think the web site includes softtware, think again.
However, in the more general sense, some of us belive that free
documentation is
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
