On 4/17/2013 10:12 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Bruce Perens writes:
Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
with it.
Er, yes. (Was there something I said that contradicted that
Karl, Robin means that the work is dedicated to FSF and placed under a
BSD or MIT license. These are compatible with the GPL and FSF is fine
with it.
Thanks
Bruce
On 4/17/2013 10:04 AM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Robin Winning writes:
I am a contracts manager at software company, and in
We appreciate what we got. But my point is that maybe with a well written
license Victoria Hall would have finished the case on her own in the lower
court.
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal
>to the
>CAFC. So reading the judge's decisio
that the Artistic License 1.0 text is
self-invalidating. It's not so clear that a better drafted license would have
reduced us to basing the appeal on the economic value of attribution alone.
Thanks
Bruce
Ben Tilly wrote:
>I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of
10:15 PM, John Cowan
>wrote:
>> Bruce Perens scripsit:
>>
>>> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the
>>> poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet
>>> the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of fir
ce developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is
not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have
much worse.
Thanks
Bruce
John Cowan wrote:
>Bruce Perens scripsit:
>
>And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is ri
h advice from an attorney on whether the suggested problems are
really problems.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana
wrote:
The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I
believe was approved &quo
> * *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another
message or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable.
Pretty often this sort of discussion has triggered an instant flame-fest.
And I have to agree with John. If there's a breach of civility, direct
confrontation is unlikely
mp;A intellectual property audit in better shape than otherwise.
I do know a company that spent money, including on me, to argue just
this sort of issue recently. They spent more than most businesses would
be able to endure.
Thanks
Bruce
On 01/01/2013 05:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen w
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL
also considered unfree when applied to libra
Incidental copying is always necessary for use. You can make the license
work that way.
On 12/24/2012 05:03 AM, David Woolley wrote:
My understanding is that US copyright law doesn't restrict use of
software (UK law does). If that is correct, you will need to form a
contract at the time of su
The documentation license isn't OSD compliant, it limits number of
copies and disallows derivative works.
The software license looks like it could be.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin
On 09/10/2012 01:38 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Karl Fogel (kfo...@red-bean.com):
It's better to question reasoning than motivations, on this list and probably
most others.
Karl,
I question why you didn't call a halt when the discussion was obviously
becoming a testosterone contest past the
On 09/07/2012 11:24 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
I don't think you are approaching this discussion with a serious attitude,
attention to the subject, and/or a sense of perspective.
Is this really a serious discussion?
It sounds to me more like a contest of how many silly things some of us
can get awa
Larry wrote:
I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license
statement in the source tree of each program that points to the
OFFICIAL version of that license on the OSI website.
You are very optimistic regarding the longevity of OSI.
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
the answer the same across all jurisdictions?
It is easier to print the GPL than it is to even /start /analyzing
questions like rights in a compilation vs. rights in a collective work.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Sig
ndled as such.
We had no power to issue waivers, since we weren't the copyright holder
of the software.
Thanks
Bruce
On 09/06/2012 02:55 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
The difficulty is that text often winds up in printed books, and then
you e
Arguing the merit of plain text vs. HTML is just Lilliput v. Blefuscu.
Provide both, for different reasons.
Plain-text is a better source for cut-and-paste operations.
In general plain text divides the actual license text from any attached
commentary, making it clear which is which.
There is
media.7.n6.nabble.com/Licensing-for-textures-within-SVG-files-td1473913.html
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org
the United States, there is moral rights law, but it is
often in state law. For example, the California Art Preservation Act.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Art_Preservation_Act>
Thanks
Bruce
On 07/16/2012 07:16 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote:
The reasoning behind it is to give
ive debate in
the Oracle v. Google case regarding Java. It made it even more clear
that the functional part of the Java specification was not
copyrightable. You get to use the constants, function names, etc. The
problem would not be copyright, but patents.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p
On 07/05/2012 06:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other
people outside the FSF don't listen.
It is not permissible to modify the GPL text directly. That restriction
has teeth. However, I can't think of a legal mechanism that could be
app
invalidate any other reasons why the
executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License.
/Thanks
Bruce/
/
On 07/02/2012 09:48 AM, Felix Krause wrote:
Hi everyone,
does a linking exception to the GPL require approval, or may a software be
called open source whenever it is licensed
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it does
What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the
API is not itself copyrightable?
On 06/11/2012 12:37 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
I belive I heard that his holding is that
Google wrote or commissioned independent code implementations of all
37, leaving only the question of whethe
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a coup
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You
even said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for
GPL software to be embedded within a proprietary software product a la
On 06/09/2012 01:53 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Read caselaw. I'm done.
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between separate
works and that connections across APIs do not create derivative works.
And this is regardl
the other is obviously appropriate.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
easier to
comply, in almost all cases, than to fight. So, I will continue to
advise against proprietary run-time-loadable drivers despite Judge
Alsop's finding on APIs.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 06/05/2012 09:22 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
[I’ll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval
in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it
should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the
list of OSI-approved licenses” as “po
On 06/04/2012 09:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Get rid of any indication that "popularity" [1] has anything to do
with legal viability.
Yes. Let's instead rank the legal viability of licenses according to
which ones have been enforced successfully the most times. You have no
problem with that, d
.
It's worth discussing with Brad Kuhn. Maybe he'll see a way.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org
t, publish what you want as a guideline, and live
with the fact that not everyone will follow it.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@ope
e a license
that can't be enforced because it makes them look stupid.
What you need is a contract, not a license. In general the Open Source
licenses only deal with copyright, and you can't compel some action
unrelated to copyright, like publication of research results, wi
s] without fee is
hereby granted", the answer would be different.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.
requirement on that subject.
...
If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't
necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2
implies it.
In other words, do what has previously been done, but consistently.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Descript
On 03/09/2012 09:49 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Fonts are not documents. What's meant is that the license doesn't apply
to a document created using the font.
Obviously that is what is meant. But what it says is arguably different
from what is meant. A professional would never have made such a silly
27;s a pretty strong potential to let down developers if
that's the case. They end up with no control at all.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
Lice
If I'm not mistaken, this committee met in 2004? "Time to do it right"
would be about doing it /over./ Did I miss some announcement?
On 03/09/2012 08:55 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:
If you want an organization that recommends licenses, the FSF is happy
to help. I agree that OSI
so shoot yourself in the foot" arguments.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 03/02/2012 11:34 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that
writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help.
Sure. But folks who have asked me for help got me free, and I've
sometimes found them an attorney too. This is something I would
othe
gations that he otherwise could
have.
Of course, Larry, I understand that this is not what you think should
happen. However, it appears to be how a lawsuit or something that could
have become a lawsuit has been resolved, in every case that I know of.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/02/2012 11:13 AM,
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On the other hand, "a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11 sanction"
is beyond the means of someone who cannot afford a competent attorney.
Since Olson was a Free Software developer, EFF provided his attorney
pro-bono.
Thanks
It is indeed the case that the failures I see are in companies rather
than among charity developers. However, it's a stretch to state that
they already pay for lawyers! I sometimes get paid to read their
depositions and explain them to the judge. Invariably, the failure is by
an engineer or man
On 03/02/2012 09:45 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
This could turn out to be a huge problem for any independent open
source software developer who is not wealthy. The only really safe
approach to open source software development, given the above, would
be "Don't."
If you're a non-profit, pro-bono (fre
.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/02/2012 09:16 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
NOBODY has ever settled such a case such that their code must be released.
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-d
your statements to be naive and unreliable, it wouldn't be much
of a problem.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
bly get it wrong and they can be made to look really stupid in
court by a competent expert witness. Relying on what they say about
legal issues of their own projects would be ill-advised. Instead, learn
how to engineer around the gray areas.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
sm
On 03/01/2012 08:32 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
I am not at all sure that line works once you get into trying to
bridge GPL'd and proprietary apps
Read
http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3801396/Bruce-Perens-Combining-GPL-and-Proprietary-Software.htm
Does it matter how I do this?
On 03/01/2012 08:02 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
How do I know if this license applies?
Just assume it does, because you don't really have to decide this
question to be safe.
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discus
The fact that we have not resolved some questions doesn't mean that we
don't have /any/ bright lines. I have previously published guidelines
that would keep you far from any fuzzy issues, while allowing you to
build whatever you wish.
On 03/01/2012 07:42 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Which is as much
wouldn't lose the courts
or the arguing over what something "really means".
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projec
to help the next Bob who comes along and uses one
of those licenses written in crayon. You can protect your friends by not
encouraging them to do that.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
__
ll of the talk, there is no credible political organization
working against software patenting today. In the past I've tried to get
support for one, to no avail.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
ing shorter nor simpler.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
they might not understand.
2. Provide them with a license that won't hold up in court.
The second damages them more. The first can be solved with explanation
separate from the license.
Thanks
Bruce
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographi
On 02/26/2012 02:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
"realism" instead of "a more-restrictive license".
When the terms are grants, or specifications of what must be granted in
derivative works.
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Crypto
The prudent consultant's goal is not to cast "naah-naah's" at the GPL,
nor to be an inch over the line on the right side of the law, but so
clearly in compliance that the prospect of litigation over a GPL
violation is remote. Again, no technical reason p
On 12/20/2011 11:41 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Can you tell me how many licenses are in Fedora? If it's 300, it's
something of a self-created problem, but then you'd be in lots of
company.
The numerosity itself is not a problem
This is how an attorney confirms an unpleasant truth. 300 l
I must add that I do not think I would have seen a comment like
this posted by Bruce Perens 10 years ago.
RMS is lucky to have had the help of Eben Moglen back then, but we had
no help at all from legal professionals for a long time. Lawyers were
not willing to be seen to be involved with us, it w
Sorry, I missed that it wasn't intended for submission.
The author should back up and state a /list of goals, /rather than
present the argument as pseudo-legal drafting.
Thanks
Bruce
On 12/16/2011 10:23 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> It was never submitted -- I don't think C
ayon licenses, due to the potential they
have to damage our own community.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
<>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.o
at's just about
the worst thing you can say about a group of peers.
By the way I don't think Sean's a hateful person. I don't
even think he cares whether anyone uses his license. I just
think he was having some fun at our expense.
Sincerely,
Bruce
- Original Messa
nsults and intimidation.
However, I realize that argument must seem a little fuzzy,
and perhaps a little too idealistic as well, for all of you
lawyers :-).
Thanks,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Moen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm pretty sure the OSD is concer
OSD#5 The license must not discriminate against any person
or group of persons.
Does that need to be expanded to state explicitly that this
does not just apply to the license terms? i.e. Should it
say in addition that the license text itself must not
contain any discriminatory or derogatory state
I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative
aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous
revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between
brevity and precision.
May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last
license in the AFL 1.x series, based on
else will bother to
redistribute it either.
- Bruce - IANAL -
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jeremy Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "C. Hamacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problems in Open Source Licensing
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:26:45 -0500
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
OF THIS SOFTWARE.]
--
Regards,
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
So far, no discussion. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
http://www.geocities.com/brucedodson.rm/hist_pnd.htm
Regards,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dodson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:11 AM
Subj
[ Please discuss this template. It's a clever idea. You'd have
thought that someone would have thought of it before. Bruce has
sent a few changes since his submission. Please consult his web page
(URL at bottom) for the exact current submission. -russ ]
I would like to ask that the
That's what I thought too. However, that clause is very cleverly written.
They might not have accepted AFL or that patent clause for MyCoolApp,
instead choosing to license it under ZPL and combine it with some GPL code.
However, they are also using YourCoolTool which is licensed under OSL. They
licese is GPL-compatible, and
obviously if someone sues me with an allegation that the software breaks
your patent, they can keep using my software by virtue of the rights granted
in the Zope license. But, having made that allegation, are they entitled to
use other software which is publishe
> The pain you speak of, is this from a purely "legal" stand point?
> If so, in what manner does it hinder or "cause pain" to an end user?
I'm not a lawyer so I never speak from a "legal" standpoint, even when I'm
talking about licenses. The pain is from a technical standpoint. If I make
a modif
The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions
of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. At
least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this "requirement" to
distribute patches into something that's optional. But it's confusing th
junk
mail filter or whatever. Now I have that. Thank you; now I can go back to
waiting, more patiently than before.
> I'm a volunteer, Bruce, with a TODO list longer than your arm. The
> problem with license submittals is that I try to pre-vet them, so that
> the license-discuss peo
next, and can be months. However, I just
want to know that I'm in the queue.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Is it true that changing proper names is not a problem? I had always been
of the impression that, e.g. I couldn't just use the Apache License, change
the proper names, and call my software OSI Certified.
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I urge you instead to s
so far, no one has offered to pay me what I expect as a salary and
allow me to write the software that I want to write and also give it away,
and I don't really expect... [CFC]
If you're serious about this, tweak your expectations.
-bruce
___
n source development,
while still maintaining it as non-open software (whether that is by "closed
source", "shared source", "semi-free"), I believe it could hurt the open
source community, since it could take mindshare away from legitimate open
source CASE projects like Ar
omfortable with the warranty. I would no longer let
it stop me from using AFL in situations where I might currently use MIT or
Apache-style licenses.
bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Bruce Dodson'" <[EMAIL P
The amount of damages that courts would award might vary considerably from
one jurisdiction to the next, even if the license is interpreted exactly the
same way. Without naming any names , some countries are just more
litigious than others; some courts, more punitive.
- Original Message -
I disagree. (I know, I do that a lot, but I mean well.)
It's best if licenses are simply either approved or not approved. There is
no list of licenses that have been rejected or withdrawn; that would be
punitive. By the same token, there should be no special status given to
licenses in limbo.
From: "Mike Nordell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bruce Dodson top-posted:
> > Derivative Works means "derivative works based upon the Original Work",
as
> > upposed to "derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters", or
> > "
epare" - it doesn't say "to prepare yourself to create [Derivative
Works]". It says "to prepare [Derivative Works]". Like when you're
preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something
that you can eat. No offense, but "Duh.&quo
I would like to suggest that a license template like the one below be put
forward for approval by the OSI board.
This is not really intended for new software. Nevertheless it's pragmatic
to approve it since many OSD-compliant licenses follow this template.
Examples include Scintilla/SciTE, Lucent
I like the sound of that world! Meanwhile, as you say, we live with the one
we've got.
Although there are lots of cases that deal with software, how many have
involved software that's free? (Note that my cat, being strictly an indoor
cat, is not as free as my software. But, being an indoor cat,
m
when I got her, could I have expected the original owners to pay the
veterinary expenses based on some theory of implied warranty? If I had
decided to return her, could I have expected to be compensated some amount
so I could buy a replacement cat from Pets R Us?
"Don't be stupid, Bruce, of co
I can offer something without entering a relationship with each recipient.
I have software published on SourceForge; I entered into an agreement with
SourceForge but I have no relationship with the people who downloaded my
stuff from there. The people who downloaded might or might not have a
relat
(Larry said...)
> Not if it ain't a Derivative Work, I'd say.
> ...
> What do you think?
I think the same. Common sense tells me that a book that isn't a derivative
work should be outside the scope of the contract. This concept is probably
non-technical enough that even a judge would be able to
I took it to mean any technical documentation which is provided by a
licensor, which may make the source code more accessible to a licensee.
Then you would be compelled to provide such documentation as was provided to
you when you received your copy of the source code. So, "access" in the
sense of
the right to use.
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
s to
propogate a right to sublicense, which is more complicated so it's
generally not handled that way.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
ing provisions with regard to source-code disclosure would
be enforced in court.
In an effort to create a more clearly enforcible GPL-like license, Larry
has relied on _use_ restriction rather than restriction of the creation of
derived works in his new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
se such limits
are Open Source licenses.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
licenses, like Larry's latest effort, do this
with something that is more clearly enforcible but rely on a use
restriction.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
My only concern is how this would interact with Larry's new license.
Thanks
Bruce
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
t a lawyer I
won't venture any ideas.
It would be very helpful for me (and I assume for some others) to see some
public discussion of how / whether this warranty would work in practice.
If a discussion like that happens here, I promise to stay out of it!
Bruce
- Original Message -
what they said. Too
much was said in private email for me to form an opinion. I can only look
to the result, which was an RSW discouraged to the point where he was ready
to say "have a nice life" and walk away.
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" &
For what it's worth, so far Netscape has been very responsible and careful
about not making ad-hoc changes to their license. Look at the trouble
they've been going to recently, to try and get all of their code
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed. It would have been easy to take advantage of
their right to
1 - 100 of 359 matches
Mail list logo
