Hi there, it appears you've reached the wrong mailing list - this one
isn't for the kernel. The correct one can be found at
https://linux-libre.fsfla.org. However, it's probably not useful to
start another one there. As a case in point, I've already sought
information from yet another separate loca
On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 19:14:11 -0300
d1nc...@ion.lc wrote:
> I would ask you to review the system or some
> of it's components
To be sure are you looking to have ION GNU/Linux added to
gnu.org/distros? In that case on this list we evaluate the entire
distro - not just pieces of it.
Outside of the
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400
bill-auger wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > may we return to the original topic?
>
> ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap
>
> so far:
>
> gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-f
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:36:34 -0400
bill-auger wrote:
> this is one of those FSDG grey-areas, for which it would be good to
> have some consensus
It sounds like what you're talking about his how to handle
distro-specific packaging decisions. It's important to note that the
FSDG doesn't seem to p
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:33:32 -0400
Richard Stallman wrote:
> What does "CCS" mean here?
It's supposed to be complete corresponding source code.
pgpy489yOhpTN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
As I look through Uruk, the ISO files appears to be downloadable from
SourceForge but I'm not finding the source code for those. Where is
that located in order to generate them? I don't seem to find any
information on urukproject.org or the SourceForge project.
In addition, the IRC channel and mai
To my understanding the patent situation hasn't changed.
https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
Which is a little complicated that while it's useful to have free
implementations of C#, we should arrange to depend on them as little
as possible.
pgppgN5SmZZao.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital
The GNU FSDG doesn't seem to speak to SaaSS. It seems to me that it
should.
What's driving the question is that I learned of Parabola including a
program called ydcv. It's used for translations (Chinese <-> English)
through the Youdao online translate service [0].
This wouldn't stop people from u
I have been unable to locate this engineering bulletin myself. I opened
a support ticket with NXP asking for a copy. Just in case being able to
see the actual engineering bulletin is helpful in some way.
pgpwYuAlknGen.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Thanks for noticing this. Another option is to replace the embedded
font with one of the free ones like Liberation Serif, which is
metrically equivalent to Times New Roman.
All of the FSF-endorsed distro maintainers aren't on this list. To be
sure it's captured as an actionable item, it would be h
Ineiev wote:
> I believe this results in a doubt that should be resolved:
> if Freenix doesn't "fork support", does it mean that it
> effectively directs its users to Slackware?
Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> FSF has not told us the official FSF position concerning these
> hypothetical scenarios either.
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 19:37 -0500, Luke wrote:
> Additionally, the patches are expected to be ran against specific
> Chromium releases. Future releases of Chromium are not
> patched/audited
> yet by the ungoogled-chromium project and may leak to Google.
> See: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-c
bill-auger wrote:
> the most recent news regarding this (what appears to be the official
> release notes) indicates that guix is no longer using the "ungoogled"
> team as an upstream[1]
I think that message "no longer using a fork of Ungoogled-Chromium"
means the opposite: Whereas they'd previousl
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:18 +0100, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> do you have the bug number now?
34565
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34565
It seems to be disabled at build time only.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
I decided to spend some time looking into Chromium, ungoogled-chromium,
and Guix's methods, and the GNU FSDG.
Even if vanilla Chromium does check out to be 100% free software it's
already pretty easy to tell that it wouldn't be FSFG compliant, at
least not out of the box.
One is because of add-o
Gábor Boskovits asked:
> 1. If there is a free software, how do we ensure that it remains
> free, or that it gets into the list of software with freedom issues?
> Do we supervise each commit?
My understanding is that each distro should be doing their own due
diligence to only include FSDG-complian
On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 21:22 +0100, Diego Nicola Barbato wrote:
> Is it enough to remove the non-free fonts in order to make Inferno
> compatible with the FSDG, or are there further issues, namely that
> the fonts can not be rebuilt from source (i.e. there is no source)
Under the FSDG fonts are m
There may be a misunderstanding then Thérèse; the GNU Webmastering
Guidelines had never asked for the Webmasters themselves to write to
the list. https://www.gnu.org/server/standards/#distros
#3 has that the requestor (not the Webmasters) write to the list after
the Webmasters have verified (in #1)
In thinking on this, since I do this in my spare time and don't seem
to work fast enough for André so as to get an entire distro reviewed
in 4 days before it's called "stalled", I hereby resign as the
Hyperbola application manager. Someone else can do it.
This is something I do in my spare time. The usual review will take
weeks. Sometimes months. (Remember the FSF said that PureOS took
something like two years.) This is not some automated rote process. It
takes a lot of thankless hard work and thought.
André Silva wrote ..
> Seems Hyperbola endorsement process (to be evaluated by community)
> is stalled for now.
I only volunteered to look over Hyperbola 4 days ago. It seems
premature to say this. Plus, I hope others are willing to help too and
not leaving it to a one-person job.
Jason Self wrote ..
> Yes, exactly.
I'll volunteer to do that.
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Incoming_distros has been updated to show
Hyperbola in review.
> > only in this case he was interjecting immediately, vouching that in
> > this case, the distro is already know to be a valid candidate and
needs
> > no further scrutiny at this level
>
> So now, Hyperbola needs wait for an individual volunteer on the list who
> wants to take on the role of ensu
On Sat Apr 28 13:52:56 2018, emulator...@hyperbola.info wrote:
> I've sent the above request/application to with
> CC to the mailing lists . Should i send it to
> again
The GNU Webmasters just do a very basic check to make sure that a distro is a
feasible candidate. The folks on the mailing li
On Sat Apr 28 13:52:56 2018, emulator...@hyperbola.info wrote:
> I've sent the above request/application to with
> CC to the mailing lists . Should i send it to
> again
The GNU Webmasters just do a very basic check to make sure that a distro is a
feasible candidate. The folks on the mailing li
> Hi, i'm André Silva, one of Hyperbola co-founders [0] and I would open a
> new application for an initial review, required to start at the
> beginning and run the new FSF endorsement process protocol for
> Hyperbola.[1]
>
> Hyperbola is a Free Software and Free Culture project aiming to provide
>
> Hi, i'm André Silva, one of Hyperbola co-founders [0] and I would open a
> new application for an initial review, required to start at the
> beginning and run the new FSF endorsement process protocol for
> Hyperbola.[1]
>
> Hyperbola is a Free Software and Free Culture project aiming to provide
>
Isaac David wrote ..
> right off the bat, Debian's Chromium steers users towards nonfree
> addons, just like their version of Firefox... obviously unacceptable
> to FSF standards.
Yes, I know. This stems from a little bit of hand waving on my part. I
tried to touch on it with my comment that "wh
Julie Marchant wondered about this.
Past discussions of this are in the list archives and probably on the
Linux-libre mailing list too. The general summary is that it's one thing
when someone goes and does something on their own. It's another thing
when their system tells them.
And people hav
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> It depends on how you define "to steer". Just to mention a file name or
> any other non-free program isn't hardly "steering". And it seems that
> this is also the view at the FSF. Otherwise PureOS wouldn't have been
> endorsed in the first place.
We're going in circles. We
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> This solution wasn't "not accepted" - there was no response at all on
> this list regarding this solution.
Yes, I stopped responding because of the push back to fix this in the way
that the other distros have. I quietly deemed the push back to fixing the
problem as lack
> keep it updated in an automated way
I'm not sure I'd be onboard with that idea. My understanding is that the
Parabola folk will blacklist a package as soon as an allegation is made, as
part of a "blacklist first, research second" type of policy. I don't mean
to criticize the Parabola folk for
bill-auger wrote ..
> chromium is however not one of those items - and i quote:
>
> Recommended Fix:
> Remove program/package
> Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent
Yes, although it's presence there is based on a report from 2009 that
upstream has said (on more than one occasion as I recall)
Robert Call wrote ..
> That is not part of the FSDG!
Right. And a lot of entries in there have "use version X or later" as
a fix. So even once Chromium is sorted out it'd still be on there but
with a similar recommended fix. So it's not so much a blacklist
anymore these days but more of a list o
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request
> complete removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways
> of this because simply removing things means also we remove
> productivity for many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that
> is still not 100% stable an
I don't understand the desire to boot distros off over how
"maintained" they are. (Like how often releases happen, etc.) Both
Blag and Ututo have been removed before. That can be seen in the log
from the version control system [0]. One of the cited reasons, for
Blag, was "it was last updated in 201
bill-auger wrote ..
> which leads me back to my last question to this list from yesterday -
> namely: "should a distro be grandfathered in all perpetuity once
> endorsed with no further scrutiny of their on-going practices?"
I don't think that this is intended.
One of the FSF's high priority pr
Jean Louis wrote ..
> My suggestion is that FSF and volunteers skip the
> common bureaucracy and skip to community review
> manager right now to handle those distributions
> that already applied.
I had already looked at Hyperbola before the new process started.
Finding no problems I told Don abou
Ivan Zaigralin wrote ..
> Erm, you would want distro maintainers to re-do the paperwork
> because FSF took a year evaluating a simple query?
No I don't. Notice that the date of Don's message to them is April 6
2017. So, I meant a year after the FSF got back to them.
But I see now that I had mi
bill-auger wrote ..
> BTW - the actual OP for free-slack is here:
>
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2016-07/msg00021.html
OK so freeslack can probably be updated that it's on hold pending a
name change. (Based on Donald's 2017-04-06 email quoted at
https://www.freeslack.net
bill-auger wrote ..
> some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification
But hopefully not to the point of trying to document and cover all
possible cases. This is probably not possible. Even if it were if
evaluations were treated as a simple, automated, rote process where
someone worked
Thanks for the work on this Donald!
It would also be good if the existing resources could be updated to reflect
this. For example, https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-
guidelines.html mentions "If you know about a free distribution that isn't
listed there, please ask its develop
Jean Louis, the idea of having volunteers do the reviewing before the FSF
gets involved helps spare their limited resources. Also, having more eyes
looking into things is surely better than fewer ones (i.e., if it were only
FSF staff.)
Therese Godefroy via RT wrote ..
> I would be delighted to comment out Blag until it resurrects.
The free distro page is supposed to be maintained by the FSF's
Licensing and Compliance Lab, not the GNU Webmasters. Given that the
GNU Webmasters aren't supposed to add new distros [0] I would take
Perhaps a more philosophical question is: *Should* a free program,
especially one used in FSF-endorsed distros, be generating requests
for proprietary programs in the first place? Regardless of how they
might be handled.
> i must say though that it did not address what is the actual
> behavior preventing the debian kernel from being acceptable,
I thought it did.
> why is it not possible to simply change or suppress the error
> message printed to the log or to later or periodically scrub the
> logs of the naught
Alexandre Oliva wrote ..
> It certainly sounds odd. But, honestly, right now I'm more
> concerned that updates for PureOS seem to have been published in a
> non-free repo. Specifically, non-free microcode for CPUs affected
> by Spectre. Surely we don't mean to endorse distros that do that,
> do
bill-auger wrote ..
> then the obvious question would be if the OP will see these replies if
> they are not subscribed to this mailing list
They wouldn't. I imagine that the webmasters will handle the replying of
email that's sent to them? Maybe this was sent as food for thought or
something?
bill-auger wrote ..
> where is this ticket that you reference? gnu.org #1262331 - it is not
> on the CC list - is that a on public tracker?
It's a ticketing system used to handle certain email addresses like
webmast...@gnu.org (and more), which seems to be where the person
originally wrote to.
Therese Godefroy via RT wrote ..
> Should a distro that hasn't been maintained for several years be listed
> in free-distros.html, especially if it is based on a major distro which
> itself isn't maintained anymore? I am thinking of Blag, based on Fedora
> 10 (2010).
That's already a thing: One
It's probably best to run it by Alexandre Oliva. I imagine that there will
still be challenges with this; he'd be the best person to explain them.
It's not an easy problem to solve or it would have been by now.
Not necessarily. My understanding is that there is an idea for how to
enable the loading of the proprietary firmware without also steering
people to it when it's not present. A partial patch for it already
exists in the linux-libre mailing list archives but it's a hard
problem and hasn't been fully
Henry Jensen asked:
> So, of course I want to know how PureOS can use this Debian based
> kernel and be endorsed while ConnochaetOS can't?
As Donald implied there is a lot of work involved in review a distros so I
imagine that this was missed. A primary difference is a willingness to
correct mi
Hello, I wanted to check in and report that I've not yet found any problems
to report. I'm wondering if anyone else is looking into Hyperbola and can
share if they've identified anything?
Gpast_panama wrote ..
> What modifications would typically be required to port it to an
> alternative kernel tree, if the former?
It depends on what has changed. As an example, if you were to look at
what Trisquel does, they have modified the deblob scripts to catch
additional things that Canoni
8jxvrx+1bfu4ijuj3e68, trademarks aren't necessarily a problem. Yes,
there is potential (add emphasis on that word there) for problems.
I'll include by reference how Mozilla's trademark policy goes too far
by including distribution restrictions going against freedom #2, but
that is a specific proble
Oh, and we also have similar efforts with things like GNU IceCat and
Trisquel's Abrowser. It probably makes more sense to work together and
not fragment efforts by starting yet another modified version of a
Firefox-based browser.
It seems to have redistribution problems similar to Firefox, along
with the misunderstanding that free software isn't about cost. It can
be modified, and then a re-branded version could be distributed free
of those problems, but this is also true of Firefox so I'm not sure
what benefit there is to
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> This was an error by me, I did not update the symlink to the source,
> which is located at
> https://connochaetos.org/slack-n-free/slack-n-free-14.2/d/. This is
> fixed now.
Thank you, although even with this change I still cannot account for
all of the source code for al
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> Yes, thank you for linking to the messages. RMS mentions a change
> "to obfuscate the names of the firmware files" instead of failing.
That was not the primary reason for linking to that message. Pay
attention to his very first statement:
> It sounds like the new Debi
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> The section "Debian GNU/Linux" mentions 3 problems with Debian
The common distros page is not intended to be an exhaustive list of
all problems that exist with a given distro. It even says so on the
page: "We do not aim for completeness; once we know some reasons we
can't
The FSF can, of course, set whatever criteria/conditions they want in
order to put their name behind something.
While I don't pretend to speak for the FSF the things I point out are
things that, based on past experience, are problematic points to
address if the end goal is indeed to get the FSF to
Ah, I managed to find the ones I was thinking of:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00033.html
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-12/msg00032.html
Henry Jensen wrote ..
> The link to the freeslack project shouldn't be a problem, since
> the page at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html links
> to the very same project.
There is no reference to FreeSlack on that page, only Slackware.
But even if we consider Slackware, what is bei
J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> I see on https://connochaetos.org/wiki/ that ConnochaetOS "is
> available for x86 (32 bit) only" and directs users looking for an
> x86_64 libre Slackware GNU/Linux distro elsewhere.
That is probably a valid point. I imagine that FSF-endorsed distros
should probably not
Jean Louis said:
> Considering all of the above, I propose that NINTENDO® trademark is
> removed from ALL free software distribution as such.
You started a similar thread about this on the Guix mailing list too.
For example I think where, in Guix, the package for Mupen64Plus says that
it "is a
J.B. Nicholson wrote ..
> Julian Marchant wrote:
> > As far as I know, all Flash objects are non-libre.
>
> How do you figure this?
I think they are referring to the ActionScript code [0] to construct the
player (or whatever else.) It is usually not free which means that you're
still running n
Jean Louis wrote ..
> I have made mistake, I wanted to say:
>
> there is NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF FREE ROM that was made for
> MAME that is on their website. Not outside of MAME website.
But it shows that a given program can have multiple uses.
Chris Webber has a well-written reply to a s
fr33domlover asked:
> a tiny distro for old hardware
x86_64 machines, which are one of the stated targets, are not old.
Imagine a 12-core Intel Xeon.
> I'd just like to understand why something with minimal benefit
It's not clear to me why you're reluctant to provide easy access to a
compiler &
fr33domlover asked:
> What if a distro is not self-hosting, but can be built from another
> fully free distro which is on the FSF's list of free distros?
An exception to self-hosting is addressed in the GNU FSDG already.
This was added for clarity due to LibreWRT, which targets embedded
devices
Ineiev wrote:
> I'm not sure the exception should apply to it.
Yeah, the idea was that it was for embedded distros that target
machines with insufficient storage, RAM & CPU power to compile their
own software themselves. The exception doesn't make much sense outside
of the embedded world.
Michał Masłowski asked:
> Do the GNU/Linux-libre distributions need separate design to be useful
> on servers?
Riley Baird replied:
> Yes. Most GNU/Linux-libre distributions have a GUI and various other
> unnecessary, potentially vulnerable programs. These are useful for
> desktop users, but not
Riley Baird wrote ..
> So, it is with great excitement that I announce today LibertyBSD.
I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0]
instead of starting another free BSD?
> LibertyBSD is a fork of OpenBSD that contains only free software.
I've not been able to examine
Their message seems to indicate that they're blocking access from
certain IP ranges. This tells me that they're only talking of what
they do to comply with U.S. export laws, not making it a part of the
license.
Hence, let's go back to the FSF's Free Software Definition. The whole
thing is relevant
Christophe Jarry said:
> In an attempt to build a simple GNU/Linux-libre distribution
> targetted at Loongson 3A machines, I wrote a document that
> describes how to build a basic GNU/Linux-libre operating system.
You might be interested in collaborating with [0] who also target
Loongson CPUs (
Riley Baird said:
> For someone who hasn't decided whether they care about free software
> or open source (or both), it would help them to make their mind up
> without feeling that they are reading propaganda.
Framing copyleft as a restriction is often propaganda used by the
anti-copyleft crowd th
Riley Baird said:
> is a restriction
The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if
Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with.
Framing copyleft as a "restriction" is not a good idea. This goes back
to what John said.
As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc
Riley Baird asked:
> What part of their description is untrue?
One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3
as a restriction.
If you listen to Tom Preston-Werner's (GitHub co-founder) anti-GPL
keynote from OSCON his position on the GPL will become clear and
shouldn't be su
Ludovic Courtès said:
> There are still important limitations [1] that make it unsuitable as a
> production system or for newcomers, but OK (and even pretty cool, I
> dare say ;-)) as a hacker’s system.
>
> So I wonder if now would be a good time to start reviewing it for FSDG
> compliance.
>
> WDY
Luke Shumaker:
> I'm with Parabola GNU/Linux-libre, and I have doubt that we can
> continue packaging the CAcert root certificate.
>
> It was pointed out that in 2010 Fedora Legal found[0] CAcert's "Root
> Distribution License"[1] to be non-free; with a usage restriction.
How does this compare wi
Joshua Gay wrote:
> I received a release of corresponding source on a disk from the
> maintainer.
Is it version 1.2? If so I have the same CD and fed everything on it
to my FOSSology instance for analysis.
In librecmc-1.2.tar.bz2 inside dl/cmake-2.8.12.2.tar.gz is Utilities/
xml/ docbook-4.5/ e
I've been keeping an eye on ProteanOS and haven't found any issues. It
seems that it meets criteria.
Shintaro Shinozaki said:
> I would like to withdraw request for endorsement for GdNewHat
> because I decided to give help to restart BLAG distro and
> close GdNewHat project at the end of current release in order
> to shift development from binary base distro to source one.
>
> I would like to th
Is anyone interested in helping to further review GdNewHat? Please let
me know and I can arrange for you to have access to my FOSSology instance.
Shintaro Shinozaki said:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Shintaro Shinozaki who is lead developer of GdNewHat
> project. We are currently maintaining GNU/Linux-libre system
> distribution and RPM repositories without non-free packages. So,
> we would like to join gnu-linux-libre community and request
Riley Baird (Orthogonal) asked:
> What do we need to evaluate/discuss before it is accepted?
I go use it, look it over, see what packages they have and if there is
any low-hanging fruit like stuff mentioned in [0]. Grabbing the source
code for packages and auditing them is also needed - looking f
Shintaro Shinozaki said:
> I already sent email to webmast...@gnu.org. Webmaster gave me
> instructions to send email to gnu-linux-libre ML.
Yes - My understanding is that the role of the GNU Webmasters is
limited to briefly checking that the distro is a feasible
candidate: they should have a clea
Ludovic Courtès said:
> I’ve come up with a plan that will allow Guix to behave similarly [0].
Good good. :)
I do have another question about how to apply the FSDG guidelines to Guix.
Specifically in the Complete Distros section it mentions that "if
using it requires further work or presupposes
Ludovic Courtès said:
> Yes, I understand this, but my question was more about how this occurs
> technically.
>
> My understanding is that Debian-based distros provide the unmodified
> upstream source, with a debian/patches tree containing patches they
> apply. Do I get it right?
Ah, I see. In th
Ludovic Courtès asked:
> But, what does "source code" mean here? Does it mean the source that's
> made available using the distro tools, such as 'apt-get source'?
That's my understanding of it.
> What kind of changes are these, typically? Are these changes to debian/
> files (such as adding new
Ludovic Courtès said:
> I'm reluctant because of the technical and administrative burden it
> entails
I suppose another option is to leave out problematic packages
entirely. Otherwise, welcome to the world of being an FSF-endorsed
distro. :)
> Besides, our package meta-data would probably still r
Sam Geeraerts said:
> Note that some packages may contain non-free files (e.g. [a]),
> regardless of the license of the whole. There are also freedom issues
> that are unrelated to the license of the code, e.g. encouraging the use
> of non-free software [b]. I see that your packaging guidelines men
While reviewing zeroc-ice_3.2.1.orig.tar.gz in gNewSense I found
ConvertUTF.cpp and ConvertUTF.h in Ice-3.2.1/src/IceUtil.
It says it can be used "in the creation of products supporting the
Unicode Standard" but shouldn't you also be able to use in things that
don't?
/*
* Copyright 2001-2004 Unic
Alexandru Cojocaru wrote ..
> Is Gnuplot really Free Software?
> Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
> distribute the complete modified source code. Modifications are to
> be distributed as patches to the released version.
I seem to recall that other programs hav
In case anyone hadn't seen this.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Karl Goetz wrote ..
> This would mean adding text to a number of images which can't be
> translated without shipping a new background image per language. I
> question whether thats really what we should be doing - it feels quite
> imperialist (to me).
It seems to me that it doesn't (necessarily) n
Ineiev asked:
> Is it self-hosting?
I'm not sure that the self-hosting requirement makes sense in this case
because emedded devices typically do not have the resources to compile
their own software. It's usually done on a more capable system and then
copied to the device afterward.
In the case of
Has anyone else taken a look at this GNU/Linux distribution? It took me longer
than I had planned but I eventually made my way through all of the ConnochaetOS
packages and I think that the meet the FSF's criteria at this point. The
exception is calling themselves "open source" rather than free s
There was a recent discussion about the Linux kernel and GPLv3 on a
mailing list and it made me wonder how much stuff is licensed under v2 only
terms.
So I fed Linux-libre 3.1.4 to FOSSology so I can look for things that
would get in the way of moving to v3. Not that Linus ever would, but
perhap
Sam Geeraerts wrote ..
> Is corehost.us not included because of false modisty or does it really
> not qualify?
I was never clear why corehost.us didn't offer things like Trisquel, etc. as
part of their virtual and dedicated server options.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
