Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplemental
Stephen> terms. Clause 3 pertains to distribution of binaries:
This is Sun's supplemental terms for the j2sdk and applies to the
end-users wishing to redistrinute a Java2 run-time environment (read
the mentioned README file if you don't believe me). It is, therefore
an EULA. The Blackdown supplemental terms appear at the bottom on the
licence and explicitly grant redistribution by mirrors and Linux
distributions, so long as the files in the original tarballs remain
unaltered.
[...]
Stephen> It says nothing about whether or not you can sue Debian.
Stephen> It explicitly says that it is Sun which you must
Stephen> indemnify against damages.
Stephen> As I indicated before. If you wish to assert that I am
Stephen> wrong and why I am wrong then I will withdraw my
Stephen> objection.
Proof by counter example. This is from the xfree86 licences:
2.4 GLX Public License
GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) ("License")
3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in
Exhibit A must be conspicuously included in any notice in an
executable version of Subject Software, related documentation or
collateral in which Recipient describes the user's rights relating
to the Subject Software. Recipient may distribute the executable
version of Subject Software under a license of Recipient's choice,
which may contain terms different from this License, provided that
(i) Recipient is in compliance with the terms of this License, and
(ii) the license terms include this Section 3 and Sections 4, 7,
8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may not be modified
or superseded by any other terms of such license. If Recipient
distributes the executable version under a different license
Recipient must make it absolutely clear that any terms which
differ from this License are offered by Recipient alone, not by
SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability
incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Recipient offers.
Specifically, the last sentence requires Debian to indemnify SGI
against changes to their code if they in any way alter the licence
terms. Before Branden jumps down my throat, I'm not suggesting that
he or anyone has done so, but historic behaviour is no guide to
future performance.
A second example, this from blender (currently in non-free):
7. User warning and indemnification
WARNING: use of the Software and use of any works that are (partially)
created with the Software (the "Works") may cause physical or
psychological reactions from You or from third parties, which may result
in damages, injuries, losses and/or other negative consequences. You
acknowledge that NaN can not be held liable for any such damages,
injuries, losses and/or other negative consequences. You acknowledge
that it is your obligation to investigate, prevent and/or minimize such
reactions prior to having third parties use the Works.
You shall indemnify and hold harmless NaN from and against all actions,
claims, demands, proceedings, losses, damages, costs, charges and
expenses, including but not limited to legal fees and expenses, arising
out of or in connection with (i) the use of the Software by You and (ii)
the use of any Works created with the Software by You or any third
parties.
My point is that clause is standard legalese and is already carried by
other packages within Debian.
--
Stephen
"And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:38:07PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Proof by counter example. This is from the xfree86 licences:
>
> 2.4 GLX Public License
>
> GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) ("License")
>
> 3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in
> Exhibit A must be conspicuously included in any notice in an
> executable version of Subject Software, related documentation or
> collateral in which Recipient describes the user's rights relating
> to the Subject Software. Recipient may distribute the executable
> version of Subject Software under a license of Recipient's choice,
> which may contain terms different from this License, provided that
> (i) Recipient is in compliance with the terms of this License, and
> (ii) the license terms include this Section 3 and Sections 4, 7,
> 8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may not be modified
> or superseded by any other terms of such license. If Recipient
> distributes the executable version under a different license
> Recipient must make it absolutely clear that any terms which
> differ from this License are offered by Recipient alone, not by
> SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability
> incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Recipient offers.
>
> Specifically, the last sentence requires Debian to indemnify SGI
> against changes to their code if they in any way alter the licence
> terms. Before Branden jumps down my throat, I'm not suggesting that
> he or anyone has done so, but historic behaviour is no guide to
> future performance.
Just because a particular license exists in one of my packages --
especially in the case of XFree86, which is huge and contains code from
many sources -- doesn't mean I approve of it.
This license made me uncomfortable from the first time I read it.
IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be
DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked.
It may be necessary to call attention to this license in the community,
and call upon SGI to rectify the problem.
If the last sentence said,
"Recipient hereby agrees to hold SGI harmless for any liability incurred
as a result of any such terms Recipient offers."
I wouldn't have a problem with it. I realize it's not exactly the same
thing, but it's just not fair to ask Free Software developers to pay
SGI's legal bills if some nutty third party comes along and sues SGI
because somebody included GLX into, say, a GPL'ed work.
Another alternative would be to ask for an alternative version of the
GLX Public License that doesn't permit relicensing of executable code
when divorced from source code. Free Software developers don't care to
distribute binaries without source in the first place, so it occurs to
me that the above clause is really intended to target people who
incorporate GLX into a proprietary implementation.
I have no idea how XFree86 might feel about this. AFAICT both the
existing GLX license and the one I propose stray pretty far afield of
their "BSD/MIT terms only" policy. But that's XFree86's call to make;
if Debian can get a variant of the GLX license that eliminates the
freedom to take the code proprietary in exchange for not having to pay
SGI's lawyers in the event they get sued by some loon, that's DFSG-free
and sounds good to me. XFree86 can use the license it wants, and Debian
can use the license we want. That's the beauty of dual-licensing.
--
G. Branden Robinson| It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
pgpCV4gran4GU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:38 am, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
>
> > "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > writes:
>
> Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplemental
> Stephen> terms. Clause 3 pertains to distribution of binaries:
>
> This is Sun's supplemental terms for the j2sdk and applies to the
> end-users wishing to redistrinute a Java2 run-time environment (read
> the mentioned README file if you don't believe me). It is, therefore
> an EULA. The Blackdown supplemental terms appear at the bottom on
> the licence and explicitly grant redistribution by mirrors and Linux
> distributions, so long as the files in the original tarballs remain
> unaltered.
>
Where does it say that the suplemental terms apply only to end users?
I have read the mentioned README file, and the only part of it which is
allowed to be redistributed by end users (as I understand it) is the
runtime environment (it is not made fully clear what constitutes the
runtime environment). I am still not sure that just because we are
distributing source *along* with binaries that it does not apply to us.
> [...]
>
> Stephen> It says nothing about whether or not you can sue Debian.
> Stephen> It explicitly says that it is Sun which you must
> Stephen> indemnify against damages.
>
> Stephen> As I indicated before. If you wish to assert that I am
> Stephen> wrong and why I am wrong then I will withdraw my
> Stephen> objection.
>
> Proof by counter example. This is from the xfree86 licences:
> 2.4 GLX Public License
>
> GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) ("License")
>
>3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in
>Exhibit A must be conspicuously included in any notice in an
>executable version of Subject Software, related documentation or
>collateral in which Recipient describes the user's rights relating
>to the Subject Software. Recipient may distribute the executable
>version of Subject Software under a license of Recipient's choice,
>which may contain terms different from this License, provided that
>(i) Recipient is in compliance with the terms of this License, and
>(ii) the license terms include this Section 3 and Sections 4, 7,
>8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may not be modified
>or superseded by any other terms of such license. If Recipient
>distributes the executable version under a different license
>Recipient must make it absolutely clear that any terms which
>differ from this License are offered by Recipient alone, not by
>SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability
>incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Recipient offers.
>Specifically, the last sentence requires Debian to indemnify SGI
>against changes to their code if they in any way alter the licence
>terms. Before Branden jumps down my throat, I'm not suggesting that
>he or anyone has done so, but historic behaviour is no guide to
>future performance.
>
No, this is not the same thing at all. In the case of the Sun license
we are indemnifying damages arising from the license they give us. In
the xfree license we are indemnifying against any changes we make to
the license (as long as we don't change the license then we are not
liable in any way). This is totally different. We do not have to
indemnify SGI against changes made to their *code*. We have to
indemnify against changes made to their *license* if we distribute code
changes under a different license. I don't know if Branden distributes
any changes he makes under this license or a different one. Perhaps
Branden could clarify this for us.
Comapre this with the sun license, where we do not even have to change
the code to be liable, but only have to distribute it.
> A second example, this from blender (currently in non-free):
>
> 7. User warning and indemnification
>
> WARNING: use of the Software and use of any works that are
> (partially) created with the Software (the "Works") may cause
> physical or psychological reactions from You or from third parties,
> which may result in damages, injuries, losses and/or other negative
> consequences. You acknowledge that NaN can not be held liable for any
> such damages, injuries, losses and/or other negative consequences.
> You acknowledge that it is your obligation to investigate, prevent
> and/or minimize such reactions prior to having third parties use the
> Works.
>
> You shall indemnify and hold harmless NaN from and against all
> actions, claims, demands, proceedings, losses, damages, costs,
> charges and expenses, including but not limited to legal fees and
> expenses, arising out of or in connection with (i) the use of the
> Software by You and (ii) the use of any Works created with the
> Software by You or any third parties.
>
> My point
mpeg1 video license
Hi, I did a ITP #112699 for rte http://zapping.sourceforge.net/ rte is a video MPEG 1 and audio MPEG-1/2 Layer II encoder to encode stream from the V4L interface. rte enable a plugin in zapping a TV viewer for Gnome. After some discussion with James Troup, I don't know if this package should go in main or in non-free or never be packaged. rte itself is GPL. If somebody can tell me where this package should be ? Christian
Re: mpeg1 video license
>> [...] > If somebody can tell me where this package should be ? More precisely, this package is DFSG compliant ? Christian
Re: installing on RiscPC
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is a requirement about what is done when those modification is > made (you should send the mods to the author), but that's pretty easily > dealt with (it's a "should" which means that if it ever did go to court, > the court is likely to accept just about anything on this clause). This interpretation is even worse. I think it is clearly unacceptable for a "free" license to forbid people from making personal changes to the software without telling anybody at all about them. As I pointed out earlier, there might be situatione in which someone need something done which is *almost* the same thing which he can get his Debian system to do, but needs some small modifications which, by their nature, would reveal business secrets if he told other people about them. He should be allowed to make his modifications and keep the modified system secret. -- Henning Makholm "Monsieur, vous êtes fou."
Re: mpeg1 video license
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 01:19:23PM +0200, Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > Hi, > > rte is a video MPEG 1 and audio MPEG-1/2 Layer II encoder to encode > stream from the V4L interface. rte enable a plugin in zapping a TV > viewer for Gnome. > > After some discussion with James Troup, I don't know if this package > should go in main or in non-free or never be packaged. > > rte itself is GPL. The package itself is DFSG-free (because it's GPL) so it's NOT for non-free From your description above, it doesn't seem to contain cryptop code, so it's NOT for non-US. The remaining question, before it can go into main: any silly patents or legal risks? Currently, MP3 encoders can't be packaged for Debian. But this is a MP*2* encoder. Are they patent-polluted ? -- Oliver M. Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761 018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF pgp9i0qDO9kxr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [License that says ... blah blah .. under certain limitation you may distribute this under a changed license, and then:] > > SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability > > incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Recipient offers. > This license made me uncomfortable from the first time I read it. > IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be > DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked. I don't think it is. DFSG does not require that the software can be redistributed under different releases. Thus anybody can shield himself form the effect of this clause simply by not redistributing the software under a different release. If the set of "any such terms Recipient offers" is empty, no liability can possibly be incurred by SGI as a result of such non-existing terms, thus the cannot possibly apply. It's an *optional* right that goes farther than what the DFSG demands of licences. For DFSG purposes, such optional rights can be *ignored*. A DFSG-free license would also be able to say | You may include this code in your own proprietary programs IF you | pay me $1,000,000. or even | If You claim this code as your own work, You must grow a large beard. > Another alternative would be to ask for an alternative version of the > GLX Public License that doesn't permit relicensing of executable code > when divorced from source code. Free Software developers don't care to > distribute binaries without source in the first place, so it occurs to > me that the above clause is really intended to target people who > incorporate GLX into a proprietary implementation. Exactly. The *additional* permission to do something which we don't want any permission to do at all, can *never* make the license less free than it would have been without that permission - no matter which conditions that additional permission had. > if Debian can get a variant of the GLX license that eliminates the > freedom to take the code proprietary in exchange for not having to pay > SGI's lawyers in the event they get sued by some loon, The clause *does not apply* unless you *use* the offer to take code proprietary. Since we don't plan to use it, the clause *does not apply* to us, or to anyone else who merely wants to use the freedoms implicit in DFSG-freenes. -- Henning Makholm"De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head. Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license Stephen> (and get the fanfare of good publicity that goes with Stephen> that) then the license they release under should damn Stephen> well BE free. This is the crux of the issue. People (read Debian developers) still expect packages in non-free to have free licences. They don't. That's why they're in non-free. Indemnification is a standard corporate practice and necessary for the officers of such corporations to complete their fiduciary duty to the owners of said corporations. Expecting *any* software produced by a corporation not to include indemnification is simply naive. -- Stephen "And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:52 pm, you wrote: > > "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about > Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head. > Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license > Stephen> (and get the fanfare of good publicity that goes with > Stephen> that) then the license they release under should damn > Stephen> well BE free. > > This is the crux of the issue. People (read Debian developers) still > expect packages in non-free to have free licences. They don't. > That's why they're in non-free. > > Indemnification is a standard corporate practice and necessary for > the officers of such corporations to complete their fiduciary duty to > the owners of said corporations. Expecting *any* software produced > by a corporation not to include indemnification is simply naive. Granted. I *still* want clarification from Sun that the clause does not mean that if one of our users sues Sun then we are liable to pay Sun's costs. I preferably want that stated in the license somewhere. If it *does* mean that then I do not believe that we can distribute it. - -- Stephen Stafford finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get gpg public key -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7ydMMFwmY7Xa4pD0RAta+AJ4hy9BQgj+xWYKljoP+unbhVfwxBwCfT5C9 dTvItmpd7EFl4vBF5r+587o= =MEl1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:08:22PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > IMO the last sentence of the above-quoted clause may very well be > > DFSG-unfree...in which case the code licensed under it should be yanked. > > I don't think it is. DFSG does not require that the software can be > redistributed under different releases. Thus anybody can shield > himself form the effect of this clause simply by not redistributing > the software under a different release. If the set of "any such terms > Recipient offers" is empty, no liability can possibly be incurred by > SGI as a result of such non-existing terms, thus the cannot possibly > apply. [...] > Exactly. The *additional* permission to do something which we don't > want any permission to do at all, can *never* make the license less > free than it would have been without that permission - no matter which > conditions that additional permission had. Okay, I agree with this assessment. Licenses do not have to forbid relicensing under proprietary terms to be DFSG-free. As long as indemnification clauses do not apply to software when it is licensed under DFSG-compatible terms, it's hunky-dory. Thanks for helping to sort out the legalese. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp9cjNZ85ZEb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mpeg1 video license
Package goes in main. (Unless it has a layer-3 encoder - folks here can't decide if we can package those at all). As precedent, there's already a mpeg-1 layer-2 encoder in main called toolame. For apps that want to do entirely patent-free audio encoding, Ogg Vorbis is a great mp3 replacement. For older players that don't have a vorbis CODEC yet, you can transcode the files to mpeg-1 layer-2, which most mp3 players can handle just fine. On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 01:19:23PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: > Hi, > > I did a ITP #112699 for rte http://zapping.sourceforge.net/ > > rte is a video MPEG 1 and audio MPEG-1/2 Layer II encoder to encode > stream from the V4L interface. rte enable a plugin in zapping a TV > viewer for Gnome. > > After some discussion with James Troup, I don't know if this package > should go in main or in non-free or never be packaged. > > rte itself is GPL. > > If somebody can tell me where this package should be ? > > Christian > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mpeg1 video license
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Package goes in main. (Unless it has a layer-3 encoder - folks here can't > decide if we can package those at all). > > As precedent, there's already a mpeg-1 layer-2 encoder in main called > toolame. That's audio, what about the video? I knew MPEG layer-2 audio was fine anyway. -- James
DFSG status of DFARS clause?
[Please Cc: me on replies.] For the record, does All Rights Reserved. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: Use, duplication, or disclosure by the government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software Clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 (Oct. 1988) and FAR 52.227-19(c) (June 1987). in a license violate the DFSG? On the one hand, it appears to discriminate against the US government; on the other hand, it crops up all over the place, including in the licenses of Tcl and Tk (which are in main). A search revealed this question to have come up before, but did not reveal a conclusive answer. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (finger [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DFSG status of DFARS clause?
On 14 Oct 2001, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > All Rights Reserved. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: Use, > duplication, or disclosure by the government is subject > to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) ... > in a license violate the DFSG? I guess it depends on those restrictions. If those restrictions violate DFSG then yes. But they probably don't, making the situation a little more complex :} > On the one hand, it appears to discriminate against the US government; Perhaps that "anti-discrimination" clause needs to be clarified. It is intended to discourage software that, for example, says "you may use this software only for non-commercial purposes" or "you may not use this software in any country that does not meet X criteria." I personally do not think that a license that imposes restrictions on certain groups should count as violating the anti-discrimination clause in the case that all the restrictions are DFSG-ok. Otherwise there is a situation where something that permits additional rights to certain groups might be non-free, whereas something that denies those rights to everyone is in free. If those rights are not DFSG-related, I think that is silly. But then I have no official capacity in this at all, so :}
Re: DFSG status of DFARS clause?
On Oct 14, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > [Please Cc: me on replies.] > > For the record, does > > All Rights Reserved. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: Use, > duplication, or disclosure by the government is subject > to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) > of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software > Clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 (Oct. 1988) and FAR > 52.227-19(c) (June 1987). > > in a license violate the DFSG? DFARS: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/dfars/html/r20011001/252227.htm#252.227-7013 In the current DFARS, this appears to be subparagraph (b). Frankly the whole thing looks like a confusing mess but it appears to obligate the federal government to respect copyright law except in cases where software was developed exclusively with government funds. I recommend finding a lawyer. I really don't see anything in DFARS that would restrict the ability of the U.S. government to use any DFSG-free software, though it's possible DFARS may give them additional rights not granted by license (in which case you could argue that the restricted rights legend actually discriminates against non-government users) in certain cases, particularly if the entire project was government financed. I could only see this as a problem with something that was GPLed or otherwise copylefted (ex: GPLed software that is financed by the govt could be modified by the govt and combined with non-GPL-compatible software); a BSD-style license (which I think Tcl/Tk is under) doesn't restrict derived works anyway. If anything, it seems like a separate license for the government, which may or may not be the same thing as a discriminatory license... though we generally don't argue that dual-licensed software is non-free unless all of the licenses aren't DFSG-free and/or the range of all possible software users isn't covered by a DFSG-free license; e.g. GNU Ghostscript 6.51 is GPLed, but it was also licensed under the AFPL [as Aladdin Ghostscript 6.50] before being freed, and Aladdin licenses copies of Aladdin Ghostscript under other non-free licenses, yet GNU Ghostscript is DFSG-free. (I guess the question is: if I license software under a BSD-like license, but say in the license that people who use it to build nuclear power plants, have bad breath, or hang out with Osama bin Laden have to abide by the terms of the GPL with regards to the software, would that be non-free, even though both groups are covered by DFSG-free licenses?) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Re: DFSG status of DFARS clause?
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 10:44:57PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > particularly if the entire project was government financed. I could > only see this as a problem with something that was GPLed or otherwise > copylefted (ex: GPLed software that is financed by the govt could be > modified by the govt and combined with non-GPL-compatible software); I don't see that as a concern. That's always the right of the copyright owner; the FSF could release a proprietary backend to GCC if they chose to. > (I guess the question is: if I license software under a BSD-like > license, but say in the license that people who use it to build > nuclear power plants, have bad breath, or hang out with Osama bin > Laden have to abide by the terms of the GPL with regards to the > software, would that be non-free, even though both groups are covered > by DFSG-free licenses?) We can distribute it under a free license, so I guess it would be free. I'd only accept that if there was one license everyone could use (i.e. the GPL in this case); if one group could use it under the QPL and the other under the GPL, it's not free IMO. (I once put this up on opensource-discuss (I think), with Tom Christenson and Theo de Raadt having to follow the GPL, and that was Bruce Peren's opinion at the time.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis
