Re: What license to pick...
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Lionello Lunesu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: OK, I'll 'share' my thoughts on all of these mails. : ) Thanks for all the helpful input by the way! I appreciate it! LL So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! LL [...] LL AND we don't want other people to be able to create their LL own distribution of the toolkit. BB These two are inconsistant - the OSD essentially requires that others BB be allowed to created their own modified release of your code. OK, if this is the case, then I'll have to change the plans. I don't want to go open-source.. I think though that the license I'm looking for is out there, somewhere. But it looks like I'll be writing my own license agreement. Let me describe our product (the toolkit) in more detail. If somebody knows some good agreements I must have a look at, please let me know! Not only will you be writing your own licensing agreement, but since the code you're looking to release won't generally be miscable with existing free software compatibility issues don't particularly matter. You're stipulating conditions inconsistant with the GPL, and with the OSD. First of all, we need the input. I guess this sounds egoistic, but I'm not done yet. In return for the input, people can use it for their own projects. We WANT them to use the toolkit for their own projects and I think they'll like it too. I know it's a long shot, but I would love it if it became a standard of some kind. Flip this coin over. What's the developer getting? In a recent instance, two tools, one more polished, with a head start, and on technical merits more preferred, lost significant advantage over a latter rival in large part because the newcomer's licensing terms both allowed and encouraged greater participation. My only problem is I can't remember if I had in mind mSQL/MySQL or KDE/Gnome Why not GPL? This toolkit allows 'you' to create games (or simulations, whatever) in no-time. It's completely object oriented and allows you to reuse existing components. Just putting this toolkit on the web (GPL/freeware) could certainly damage our business (we ARE a company, remember that). This is why I plan to charge for commercial use of the toolkit. And I think I can do this in much the same way as Trolltech did with their toolkit Qt. IMO, what TrollTech did with Qt was fine, as far as it went. Where the line was crossed was with the KDE project insisting that Qt and the Qt license were compatible with the GPL when it was patently clear that they were not. Or at least, it was sufficiently *unclear* that this was acceptable that several major Linux distributions excluded KDE from their packaging. Being a proprietary or non-free software distributor is not a bad thing in my book. Walking the proprietary / non-free SWD walk and talking the free software project talk is a very thin ruse. The instance that comes to mind is Sun, a company which still hasn't settled on its strategy WRT free software and Linux, but whose gambits trying to call "black" "white", particularly in the case of the SCSL, still chafe. I'm not wholly critical of Sun -- their record is mixed, and certain acts such as GPLing (actually *triple* licensing) StarOffice are to be commended. The lesson though is to tread carefully here. The community tends not to favor anything which appears to be deceptive tactics. I find two general faults with the analysis you present in reaching your conclusions: 1. Your assessment that you cannot function as a free software distributor in this space assumes a static market in which a competing free software library with comparable features does not emerge. See again my cautions WRT KDE and mSQL. In both instances, a rival initially far less technically capable, but with more liberal licensing terms, gained significantly, or surpassed altogether, the first mover. Note that though I don't follow the gaming market at all, I am aware of several companies moving toward open source positions. I suspect this will be a growing trend. 2. Free software isn't a one-time, do-it-all-the-way, proposition. It's possible to pursue a proprietary strategy now and adopt a free one later. There are issues WRT incorporation of third-party code at both stages -- third party code in a proprietary project generally needs to either be cleared, bought, expunged, or reëngineered, before the code can be released under a free software license. Likewise, contributed or incorporated external code in a free software project generally can't simply be incorporated into a proprietary release. Maintaining all rights or ownership over the codebase will tend to increase your options. Why no third-party distributions? This one is based on my experiences with linux. Some years ago I wanted to install linux on a system and the first problem (of many to
RE: What license to pick...
The end is near. LER An alternative you might consider is the Aladdin Free Public License (AFPL). I found it at: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/aladdin/doc/Public.htm Thanks for the tip! It is what I've been looking for. Distribution is allowed but every change from the original Work must be clearly stated. I guess that's something I can live with. : ) And- I guess I was wrong about the linux distributions, thanks for pointing that out to me. However, I think the same problems applies to CVS (please, don't attack me on this : ). JC Then what you want is for people to improve your toolkit without JC any possibility of return either in money or in reputation. I think you got me wrong. Of course, anyone making a change (or bug fix) will be mentioned in the 'log file'. And what's more, that person is already _using_ the toolkit, isn't that worth something? JC As for "[...] as long as it's not used commercially. What they do JC [...] is entirely up to them", that sounds self-contradictory. Well, what I meant was that they can license their components if they want to. It's all component based. So if a company has created a plug-in, it can sell that plug-in. Or they can release the code for that plug-in, whatever. I don't restrict what they should with their source code. They'll still have to pay some fee for commercial usage of the toolkit though. But, as mentioned above, I'm very satisfied with the AFPL, and we've already decided to put our toolkit on our homepage with this license. This doesn't mean however that I'm not accepting suggestions and comments! Like I've said before, This is just to ge things started. Eventually, we may decide on a real open-source license.. Thanks again for all your help guys! Lionello.
RE: What license to pick...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Lionello Lunesu wrote: But, as mentioned above, I'm very satisfied with the AFPL, and we've already decided to put our toolkit on our homepage with this license. Fair enough. This doesn't mean however that I'm not accepting suggestions and comments! Like I've said before, This is just to ge things started. Eventually, we may decide on a real open-source license.. Excellent. Please note that when Aladdin comes out with a new major release (about every year) the previous major release goes under the GPL. This makes older versions of the technology Open Source. Thanks again for all your help guys! De nada. And of course, remember not to call your toolkit Open Source, or the forty little gods will come and do the nasty on you! :-) -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
RE: What license to pick...
OK, I'll 'share' my thoughts on all of these mails. : ) Thanks for all the helpful input by the way! I appreciate it! LL So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! LL [...] LL AND we don't want other people to be able to create their LL own distribution of the toolkit. BB These two are inconsistant - the OSD essentially requires that others BB be allowed to created their own modified release of your code. OK, if this is the case, then I'll have to change the plans. I don't want to go open-source.. I think though that the license I'm looking for is out there, somewhere. But it looks like I'll be writing my own license agreement. Let me describe our product (the toolkit) in more detail. If somebody knows some good agreements I must have a look at, please let me know! Over the past three years we (Mondo Bizzarro) have created a virtual reality toolkit that has proven to be ideal for creating anything from utilities to 3D-games or VR-simulations. The toolkit was build with several things in mind: simplicity, extendibility and portability. We have used it internally for several (big) commercial products (check our webpage for a press release). Now we want to share this toolkit with all the other coders. Why you ask? First of all, we need the input. I guess this sounds egoistic, but I'm not done yet. In return for the input, people can use it for their own projects. We WANT them to use the toolkit for their own projects and I think they'll like it too. I know it's a long shot, but I would love it if it became a standard of some kind. Why not GPL? This toolkit allows 'you' to create games (or simulations, whatever) in no-time. It's completely object oriented and allows you to reuse existing components. Just putting this toolkit on the web (GPL/freeware) could certainly damage our business (we ARE a company, remember that). This is why I plan to charge for commercial use of the toolkit. And I think I can do this in much the same way as Trolltech did with their toolkit Qt. Why no third-party distributions? This one is based on my experiences with linux. Some years ago I wanted to install linux on a system and the first problem (of many to come, may I add) was which distribution to use. It appeared like the was no such thing as 'linux' but rather several distributions. What was even more confusing was that these distributions were also growing apart, thus creating some level of incompatibility. Yeah, way to go GPL. Another big thing is that I'm looking for a license 'just to get started'. I want to 'share' our code with the public as soon as possible, but (of course) with the necessary protection. Once the code is 'on there' I'll check the comments. Maybe, if our toolkit turns out to be a load of crap, I'll look for a new job. : ) If on the other hand it CAN become a standard for creating games on different OSes, I'll think again about GPL, if that's the 'push' we need. But especially in this stage, the early beginning, I don't want to throw our precious code on the web with complete freedom. So what am I doing here on opersource.org? I want to go "open source". I've put it between quotes since it turns out to be something different than what I thought. I want to share the source code with others. They may use the source code for learning, debugging, hacking. I want them to tell me how great it is (it is!) and possibly what could be done in a different matter. They are allowed to mess with the code, I don't care 'bout that. But I don't want hunderds of sites to appear, with different versions of our toolkit and different patches and what not. (I've had the same experience last week while looking at CVS. Way out of hand!) To sum it all up: * Everyone can use our toolkit for any project they want, as long as it's not used commercially. What they do with their binaries and their source code is entirely up to them. * We want to be notified of any changes made in our toolkit. * Only we are allowed to distribute the toolkit and its updates. I don't think I've covered all the issues, but then again, I don't think the discussion is over yet : ) Lionello.
Re: What license to pick...
Lionello Lunesu wrote: So what am I doing here on opersource.org? I want to go "open source". I've put it between quotes since it turns out to be something different than what I thought. I want to share the source code with others. They may use the source code for learning, debugging, hacking. I want them to tell me how great it is (it is!) and possibly what could be done in a different matter. They are allowed to mess with the code, I don't care 'bout that. Then what you want is for people to improve your toolkit without any possibility of return either in money or in reputation. You aren't likely to get much support from the open-source community. But perhaps what you need is not the same as what you (think you) want. Read on. But I don't want hunderds of sites to appear, with different versions of our toolkit and different patches and what not. (I've had the same experience last week while looking at CVS. Way out of hand!) To sum it all up: * Everyone can use our toolkit for any project they want, as long as it's not used commercially. What they do with their binaries and their source code is entirely up to them. * We want to be notified of any changes made in our toolkit. * Only we are allowed to distribute the toolkit and its updates. First of all, relax and take several deep breaths. You *will* be notified of patches anyway. There's no need to demand legal enforcement of this. As part of the reputation game, hackers will *want* to send you their improvements and hope that you incorporate them into the standard system. The best bet for distribution is to allow other people to distribute modified toolkits, but trademark the name and reserve it to yourself. This is in effect what is done with Perl under the Artistic License: people can distribute hacked perls, but they can't call the command "perl". Also, there is no reason why you shouldn't allow verbatim distribution (via CD-ROM and the like) and every reason you should: people will be more willing to use your toolkit if it's already on their Linux or *BSD systems. As for "[...] as long as it's not used commercially. What they do [...] is entirely up to them", that sounds self-contradictory. What rights *do* you want to allow people to have? I don't think I've covered all the issues, but then again, I don't think the discussion is over yet : ) Hopefully not. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
RE: What license to pick...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000, Lionello Lunesu wrote: OK, if this is the case, then I'll have to change the plans. I don't want togo open-source.. I think though that the license I'm looking for is out there, somewhere. But it looks like I'll be writing my own license agreement. Let me describe our product (the toolkit) in more detail. If somebody knows some good agreements I must have a look at, please let me know! Here are two solutions for you, pick the one you like... A) Release it as "source code available for looking at only" software. You won't get much usage out of it in the Open Source community however. The only reason Trolltech managed in the earlier years was because their library was a *very* *good* library. But they still got megatons of flak for it until they went Open Source. B) Release it under both the QPL and your own non-open-source license. People who create Open Source programs will get it under an Open Source license, and those who use it to create proprietary and closed source programs get it under your proprietary license, possibly for a fee. The disadvantage is that your potential revenue will be lower. The advantage is that your code will be more widely used. An additional advantage of the QPL versus the GPL for your particular situation is that it still allows you some control over the product once its released. This is whyI plan to charge for commercial use of the toolkit. And I think I can do this in much the same way as Trolltech did with their toolkit Qt. Trolltech no longer does this. Perhaps you might want to ask them why. Now you only have to purchase the license if you create proprietary closed source applications. What was even more confusing wasthat these distributions were also growing apart, thus creating some level of incompatibility. Yeah, way to go GPL. You talking about collections of varied software here, not single packages. The Linux kernel is the same from distribution to distribution. So are all of the base utilities and libraries. Do you know how many Linux packages run under FreeBSD, a completely foreign operating system? About 99.9% of them. If you think having more than one choice in Linux distribution is a bad thing, then stay far away from Open Source, because choice is what it's all about. * We want to be notified of any changes made in our toolkit. * Only we are allowed to distribute the toolkit and its updates. If you are the only ones able to distribute the toolkit, I wouldn't worry too much about other people making changes. It simply won't happen. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: What license to pick...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote: I would suggest standard admittedly simplistic definitions: 1] 'Full Use Lifetime License' = [FULL] 'unfettered use' [i.e. GPL] 2] 'Limited Use Software Enjoyment Rights License' = [LUSER License :)] typical restricted commercial type copyright 3] 'No Cost License' = No cost, limited use 4] 'Freeware' = Both full use and free of cost - truly free access and use. You're on the right track here, I think. But GPL software is still truly free access and free use, even though it may be commercialized. If I don't want to pay $80 for Redhat (and I don't) I can get it from CheapBytes for the mere cost of the media, or grab it off of the ftp server, or even go get all of the components and build it myself. When I give something to the public at large, I am sharing totally. Not if you put strings on it... And in a real way, you aren't giving it to the public at all, you are giving individual copies of it to individual people, and then telling them that they have full permission to do the same. But I need to ask, if you are truly sharing your software, why do you reserve to yourself alone the right to earn any profit off of it? If they make a $100,000, it is primarily because of their personal input, their investment, their time collecting and analyzing data etc. It is from their efforts. Reselling the product of your efforts, is different. Much different if they resell 2000 copies and make $100,000. Having been in sales, I can say with utmost certainty that selling involves a large amount of personal input, investment, time, and analysis. You benefit from freely sharing with your friend and he likewise benefits from freely sharing with his guests. He received freely and he gave freely. However, had you given it as a personal gift and he instead took that case of wine to his store and sold it, would you not feel slighted? Of course I would feel slighted. I would even be angry! But the purpose of sharing is to share, not to protect one's own sensibilities. There used to be a barely humorous saying that "if you love something, set it free, and if it doesn't come back to you, hunt it down and kill it." That is absolutely the wrong attitude. I see this as being a total perversion of the concept of truly free software access. When someone donates food and medicine for those in need, is it acceptable for it to be intercepted by some middlemen [i.e. governmental bureaucrats or military personel] who then divert it to their own uses or demand payment or extort some service for it? This is a totally different matter. When I give food and medicine to the needy, I intend for it to go to the needy. I am not giving my food and medicine freely to the public, but only a few select individuals. But unlike food and medicine, software cannot be diverted. It can be copied but not destroyed or hidden. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: What license to pick...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Lionello Lunesu wrote: So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! [...] AND we don't want other people to be able to create their own distribution of the toolkit. These two are inconsistant - the OSD essentially requires that others be allowed to created their own modified release of your code. That doesn't mean you can't prevent them from using your name. Brian
Re: What license to pick...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Lionello Lunesu wrote: Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? Not specifically, but it doesn't prevent you from separately licensing the code that you own to someone under terms other than the GPL. You *have* have the right to relicense that code, though - meaning you'd have to acquire it from any contributor. Brian
Re: What license to pick...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote: Were I to release code for the public good and access, I would resent it highly if someone assimilated it, packaged it and marketed it, and making thousands or even millions in the process. And if that were to happen, I think I would be reluctant to be altruistic and release more code pro bono. If that *were* to happen, you would be free (as would anyone else) to undercut the merchant. A high price would not be sustainable. If anyone were able to charge a high price, it would have to be for something else: brand name/reputation, service, or what not. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
What license to pick...
OK.. So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! But we haven't decided which license to use for it. GPL seems the obvious choice, but we want to restrict the freedom somehow (at least in the beginning, just so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial use (I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes made in our source (so we can review them and possibly build them in, in the 'real' version). AND we don't want other people to be able to create their own distribution of the toolkit. I guess GPL allows them to do this. I've also looked at QPL (from Qt free edition) and it might be what we're looking for. Any ideas? Lionello Lunesu Mondo Bizzarro
RE: What license to pick...
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial use (I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes The GPL encourages commercial use (I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the OSI rules require all their licences to permit it as well). First, of course, one has to define commercial use, and this is the great problem with "no commercial use" claues. Some people mean actually selling the software. Some include giving it away as to someone with whom one has a commercial relationship (e.g. Kermit). Some mean using it internally in the course of a business (they may make a distinction between internal use and providing access to the software as a service, although the distinction may be blurred). The GPL permits all of these activities, but requires that, in the first two cases, the, possibly modified, source code be provided under the GPL, and that no licensing conflicts be created. For the third case, it permits unpublished modifications and mixing with code with conflicting licences. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: What license to pick...
Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? L.
Re: What license to pick...
Lionello Lunesu wrote: Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? You can ask what you want. :-) But because the GPL explicitly permits free redistribution, anyone could do the same, so it would be necessary to add value in return for the fee. Mark
Re: What license to pick...
It is nice to see someone ask questions before they take a license and assume it does something it does not, and mis-use it. Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? That is a question that can be interpreted in a few different ways which change the answer. You, as the toolkit creators, can distribute the software for a fee as you choose. You can even decide to distribute by charging only certain customers, and not others. A Free software license (...Free with a capital F here refers to freedom: the abilities of anyone possessing a legal copy of the source code...) means the authors have given freedom to use and distribute the source code. That freedom includes permission to redistribute under the license, with or without charging. Each Free software license is specific on what is and is not included in the freedoms it gives. It is hard to summarize the differences, you should read the licenses. You mentioned you were inclined to use the GPL. Under the GPL, you are prohibited from making additional use restrictions. - You may not require royalty payment for commercial (or any) use. (A royalty refers to a payment to the author when a copy is used. This is different than charging for transferring a copy.) - You may not require someone pay you when they transfer or use a copy. - You may not limit the fees someone may charge for making a copy. - You may not require that modifications be sent to you. (But the GPL does require that when a derivative work is distributed, the GPL'ed source code is included.) Other Free licenses have different requirements and restrictions. But to be a Free license, they may not prohibit use in a commercial, or certain environment. (That's what the non-discrimination clause of the Open Source Definition says.) When/if you start accepting modifications from the community, then you have to be careful that the contributions can be incorporated and licensed the same way. Everyone here strongly suggests you use an existing, approved license instead of writing your own. The difficult "leap of faith" for authors is to believe that the marketplace by nature (rather than through closed-license requirements) generally preserves the value in software. As long as your software fits into one of the business cases that Eric Raymond discussed for Open Source software, then you'll probably be happy using an Free/Open Source license. And if you don't match one of those business cases, then, yes, you will be giving away value. The open source license will ensure the value is preserved or increased (more people will benefit) but if you can't stay in business, then don't do it. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
RE: What license to pick...
From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use of our toolkit? [DJW:] No. You can ask a fee for the supply of the recorded media and for support, but you cannot charge for the licence itself. You can even charge for the process of creating the binary (although anyone with the source can create their own binary without paying you). You could charge a huge fee, and in some markets that might work, because the market is small or technically unsophisticated. People like Red Hat are charging you for the media and the pressing of the Linux CD image onto that media, packaging, support and printed documentation++, not for the copy of the code and the licence to use it. I think RH may make documentation available on a GPL type basis, but I believe one of the FSF's concerns is the number of free packages that really need commercial documentation before you can use them. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: What license to pick...
At 10:09 AM 9/29/00 +0200, Lionello Lunesu wrote: OK.. So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! But we haven't decided which license to use for it. GPL seems the obvious choice, but we want to restrict the freedom somehow (at least in the beginning, just so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial use (I guess GPL covers this), GPL does not prohibit commercialization, it protects it. Personally I think that is a major flaw in the GNU/GPL concept of 'freeware' - I think the term 'freeware' should be reserved for software that is both free of restrictions on modifications and use AND free of charge/cost [except for nominal media and copy costs]. GPL should better be referred to as 'full use' software, in contrast to the typical commercial 'limited fair use' copyright restrictions. As is, GPL allows people to commercialize/capitalize something in they had no creative input. Mere merchants can in effect render it property by requiring payment for the software above the cost of media and reproduction, which in this day and age is virtually nil. The social exchange should be, what you receive freely, you shall give freely. To me it is tantamont to fraud to charge for software [except for minimal media and copy costs] for which you hold no legal rights. Any charges above such minimal related costs would have to be seen as a de facto exchange for the software code itself, in which a mere merchant/seller has no rights. Were I to release code for the public good and access, I would resent it highly if someone assimilated it, packaged it and marketed it, and making thousands or even millions in the process. And if that were to happen, I think I would be reluctant to be altruistic and release more code pro bono. but we also want to be notified of any changes made in our source (so we can review them and possibly build them in, in the 'real' version). AND we don't want other people to be able to create their own distribution of the toolkit. So what you want is to make the source available, so others can enhance it, critique it, fix it and you have full rights to all their effort but they cannot release their work? definitely not GPL afaik and certainly not what I would call full-use freeware.
Re: What license to pick...
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote: GPL does not prohibit commercialization, it protects it. Personally I think that is a major flaw in the GNU/GPL concept of 'freeware' - I think the term 'freeware' should be reserved for software that is both free of restrictions on modifications and use AND free of charge/cost [except for nominal media and copy costs]. GPL should better be referred to as 'full use' software, in contrast to the typical commercial 'limited fair use' copyright restrictions. Although all GPL software is indeed "freeware", it doesn't explicitely have that concept. In fact, GNU greatly prefers that people don't refer to their products as freeware, partially because of the potential commercializatin, and partly to disassociate itself with proprietary freeware (internet explorer, etc). Were I to release code for the public good and access, I would resent it highly if someone assimilated it, packaged it and marketed it, and making thousands or even millions in the process. And if that were to happen, I think I would be reluctant to be altruistic and release more code pro bono. As one who uses even less restrictive licenses than the GPL, let me come to their defense :-) You are not sharing if you deny people the ability to profit off of what you have given them. If I give someone a sandwich, I certainly expect them to profit nutritionally. If the user does not profit is some way from my software, than I can only consider my software a failure. To take a concrete example, if I share a financial planning software package, and the user proceeds to make $100,000 through its use, why should I quibble over the fact that he sold a copy for $50? One of the reasons I hear against commercialization of free software is exploitation: the user has profited without giving anything back to the author. But what about the case where I give a case of fine wine to a friend, and he proceeds to through a wonderful and joyous party, to which I was not invited? Have I been exploited because he did not offer to me a part of the enjoyment (profit) he received from my wine? I can certainly understand you not wanting others to profit off of your work. GNU has other concerns which is why they use the GPL to restrict how people may redistribute their software. I am concerned neither way and impose minimal restrictions on my software. Neither of these viewpoints are correct for everyone. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
