Of course, this one has the actual attachments. I didn't manage to stop the last one from sending before it was too late to fix it. Naturally. <sigh> -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE
version 0.9+knghtbrd3
Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute this license document.
This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of
the Q Public License version 0.9. Such software is herein referred to
as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of
the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the
Software, and development of free software which uses the Software.
Granted Rights
1. You are granted the rights set forth in this license provided you
agree to any and all conditions in this license. Distribution of the
Software in machine-readable source or binary form signifies acceptance
of this license.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided
that the entire package is distributed, including this License.
# Small wording changes to both 1 and 2, nothing affecting meaning.
3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve
the integrity of the unmodified version of the Software, modifications
must be distributed in a manner which distinguishes them from the
Software as released by the Copyright holder. To that end, the following
restrictions apply to modifications:
# Wow. Here's a pretty significant change for you. The line about patches
# is removed and replaced instead with just a vague mention of keeping
# things different. The restrictions below will spell it out.
#
# Despite what isn't there, this isn't a big significant change since the
# restrictions that WERE there are below.
a. Modifications may not alter or remove any Copyright notices in the
Software.
# v3: 3(a) has been returned to say more or less what it did in the original
# license. The loophole v2 fixed isn't there to fix anymore and the fix
# may work with 3(c) to cause the license to be interpretted in a manner
# we kinda don't want. 3(a) is probably not needed at all, but it's not
# a problem either so it stays.
b. The preferred form of distribution of modifications to the Software
is in the form of a source patch. The modification must be clearly
distinguishable from the original version including an accurate
description of the modification, the date of the modification, and the
author of the modification.
# This was 3(c), I moved it because it seems to fit better here. I also
# clarified the restriction on making mods clearly be mods. The change here
# is that the mods do not HAVE to be patches.
#
# PROS: This is more GPL compatible. In fact it's quite probably DIRECTLY
# GPL compatible. If it's not, there's a change below that will make
# sure that GPL apps can use Qt without any lame special permissions.
# This also is the also part of what will make nobody want to exploit
# the the GPL thing below to create a GPL Qt that Troll Tech can't
# sell for use with proprietary apps. It also guarantees that a any
# packaging of Qt for any operating system whether or not the
# packaging system used permits source and diff like Debian (and I'm
# told Redhat) package managers do. There are other Linux package
# managers and other unix and non-unix platforms all have their own
# methods of doing things. This also solves an issue with putting Qt
# in CVS because the patches aren't required, but are still asked for.
# CONS: This makes it so patches to source in pretty much ANY condition, not
# just those where requiring seperate source/patch is not possible or
# not practical. It's still possible for someone to make a major
# change to the Qt code, change a version number and/or the name of
# the thing, and release it as a forked version which may or may not
# eventually merge with Qt should Troll Tech wish to incorporate
# patches (and assuming they're ALLOWED to, more on that soon..) It
# makes people with odd needs or wanting to be able to plunk the thing
# in CVS for a group development effort or an unknown package
# management scheme to make direct derived works--it may even make the
# thing GPL compatible without 6(c) below, but is this going to give
# Troll Tech any reasonable control they didn't have before? I'm not
# totally sure on that. See next section.
c. If modifications to the Software are released under this License, a
non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the Copyright for the
unmodified Software to distribute your modification in future versions
of the Software provided the Software remains available under these
terms in addition to any other license.
# Why is the first word of this thing _IF_? I'm glad you asked. You can't
# really restrict the license on patches until they are applied--that's a
# nono. Not your code, not your Copyright. You can't prevent use with a
# license, only distribution. And you can't control distribution of a
# seperate work you don't own Copyright to. You _CAN_ control in the
# License what can be distributed as part of Qt and we took care of that, it
# can't change the terms of the license. So instead, we say essentially
# that patches under THIS LICENSE which will be the natural choice to use
# since that's what Qt is under are available to Troll Tech and they can
# sell their professional edition which can link non-free programs. That's
# a LOT of power to give Troll Tech over your code, so that power is
# provisional: Your patch must remain available under these terms, which is
# fine since almost all agree that these terms equate to a slightly relaxed
# GPL that gives special rights to in this case Troll Tech to be able to
# stay in business.
#
# There is possibly a loophole in there which might allow anyone who has
# contributed a patch and had it accepted into Qt proper to make other
# patches available in a non-free manner. I think I plugged it well enough
# that it can't be used though, if it ever could. Took changing 3 words and
# adding "unmodified" in front of one of those Software's above.
#
# This change also fixes the implication that patches must be BSDish since
# technically you couldn't require that anyway and in fact you'd rather not
# really. This doesn't break the GPL compatibility _I THINK_ since there's
# nothing that says patches can't be GPL'd. In fact, I expect we'd see lots
# of QPL/GPL dual-licensed patches, similar to what happens with Mozilla.
#
# I had some issues with the wording initially, but I think I've fixed them
# at least to my satisfaction. Loopholes, problems?
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software,
provided that you accompany it with this license and a description of
where the source code to the Software, plus any patches applied, may
be downloaded. This information must be put in a location where a user
of the distribution is likely to look for it.
# The last sentance here is not the most legal-looking thing I've ever seen,
# but I didn't have the heart to change it. I was amused by it. =>
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
third parties.
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software under the following restrictions:
a. You make your items available in machine-readable source code
form free of charge to all users of those items. You may charge a
fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.
# v3: dark believes the word "reasonable" causes a problem since we don't
# clarify what is or isn't reasonable. Since I don't want to (and the
# GPL doesn't either), and it means the exact same thing with or
# without it, the word was zapped.
b. You explicitly permit users of your items to freely modify the
source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices,
attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute
original or modified versions of the items. Licenses which fit this
requirement include the GNU GPL and LGPL, the X Consortium License, the
BSD license, and others.
# v3: Added last sentance. Should it stay there or be removed?
# v3: For better or worse, 6(c) has been removed entirely. As of v2, the
# GPL was the only license needing it, and then only because it was used
# to add GPL compatibility to a license that wasn't GPL compatible
# before. It added exploitability to the license by allowing a GPL'd
# version of Qt to fork which Troll Tech wouldn't be able to license the
# way they want to. As it stands now the thing is PROBABLY compatible
# without it, and if I'm wrong and the clause _IS_ needed to make it so,
# the clause is too much of a risk for Troll Tech to take and people
# would then still need to add or seek permission to use stuff with it.
# I certainly hope that's not necessary.
Limitations of Liability
In no event shall the authors of the Software or their employers be
liable for any lost revenue or profits or other direct, indirect,
special, incidental or consequential damages, even if they have been
advised of the possibility of such damages.
No Warranty
The Software is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING
THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
# Left unanswered in my first suggested mod, I ask again: Most license have
# a much longer No Warranty section, is it necessary or does this suffice?
# If more should be added, what more exactly?
THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE
version 0.9+knghtbrd2
Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute this license document.
This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of
the Q Public License version 0.9. Such software is herein referred to
as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of
the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the
Software, and development of free software which uses the Software.
Granted Rights
1. You are granted the rights set forth in this license provided you
agree to any and all conditions in this license. Distribution of the
Software in machine-readable source or binary form signifies acceptance
of this license.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided
that the entire package is distributed, including this License.
# Small wording changes to both 1 and 2, nothing affecting meaning.
3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve
the integrity of the unmodified version of the Software, modifications
must be distributed in a manner which distinguishes them from the
Software as released by the Copyright holder. To that end, the following
restrictions apply to modifications:
# Wow. Here's a pretty significant change for you. The line about patches
# is removed and replaced instead with just a vague mention of keeping
# things different. The restrictions below will spell it out.
#
# Despite what isn't there, this isn't a big significant change since the
# restrictions that WERE there are below.
a. Modifications may not cause any portion of the machine-readable
source code of the Software to be available under any terms other than
those set forth in this License or change any Copyright notices found
in the Software.
# You may not create a patch under BSDish license which happens to include
# most or all of Qt in it in an attempt to create a BSDish-licensed Qt which
# would be arguably possibly technically legal, if ethically completely
# disgusting. Let's plug that loophole RIGHT HERE.
#
# 3(a) chosen for a good spot since it was talking about this kind of thing
# already. Whoever pointed it out on debian-devel that this might be a
# possible exploit in the license, thanks.
b. The preferred form of distribution of modifications to the Software
is in the form of a source patch. The modification must be clearly
distinguishable from the original version including an accurate
description of the modification, the date of the modification, and the
author of the modification.
# This was 3(c), I moved it because it seems to fit better here. I also
# clarified the restriction on making mods clearly be mods. The change here
# is that the mods do not HAVE to be patches.
#
# PROS: This is more GPL compatible. In fact it's quite probably DIRECTLY
# GPL compatible. If it's not, there's a change below that will make
# sure that GPL apps can use Qt without any lame special permissions.
# This also is the also part of what will make nobody want to exploit
# the the GPL thing below to create a GPL Qt that Troll Tech can't
# sell for use with proprietary apps. It also guarantees that a any
# packaging of Qt for any operating system whether or not the
# packaging system used permits source and diff like Debian (and I'm
# told Redhat) package managers do. There are other Linux package
# managers and other unix and non-unix platforms all have their own
# methods of doing things. This also solves an issue with putting Qt
# in CVS because the patches aren't required, but are still asked for.
# CONS: This makes it so patches to source in pretty much ANY condition, not
# just those where requiring seperate source/patch is not possible or
# not practical. It's still possible for someone to make a major
# change to the Qt code, change a version number and/or the name of
# the thing, and release it as a forked version which may or may not
# eventually merge with Qt should Troll Tech wish to incorporate
# patches (and assuming they're ALLOWED to, more on that soon..) It
# makes people with odd needs or wanting to be able to plunk the thing
# in CVS for a group development effort or an unknown package
# management scheme to make direct derived works--it may even make the
# thing GPL compatible without 6(c) below, but is this going to give
# Troll Tech any reasonable control they didn't have before? I'm not
# totally sure on that. See next section.
c. If modifications to the Software are released under this License, a
non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the Copyright for the
unmodified Software to distribute your modification in future versions
of the Software provided the Software remains available under these
terms in addition to any other license.
# Why is the first word of this thing _IF_? I'm glad you asked. You can't
# really restrict the license on patches until they are applied--that's a
# nono. Not your code, not your Copyright. You can't prevent use with a
# license, only distribution. And you can't control distribution of a
# seperate work you don't own Copyright to. You _CAN_ control in the
# License what can be distributed as part of Qt and we took care of that, it
# can't change the terms of the license. So instead, we say essentially
# that patches under THIS LICENSE which will be the natural choice to use
# since that's what Qt is under are available to Troll Tech and they can
# sell their professional edition which can link non-free programs. That's
# a LOT of power to give Troll Tech over your code, so that power is
# provisional: Your patch must remain available under these terms, which is
# fine since almost all agree that these terms equate to a slightly relaxed
# GPL that gives special rights to in this case Troll Tech to be able to
# stay in business.
#
# There is possibly a loophole in there which might allow anyone who has
# contributed a patch and had it accepted into Qt proper to make other
# patches available in a non-free manner. I think I plugged it well enough
# that it can't be used though, if it ever could. Took changing 3 words and
# adding "unmodified" in front of one of those Software's above.
#
# This change also fixes the implication that patches must be BSDish since
# technically you couldn't require that anyway and in fact you'd rather not
# really. This doesn't break the GPL compatibility _I THINK_ since there's
# nothing that says patches can't be GPL'd. In fact, I expect we'd see lots
# of QPL/GPL dual-licensed patches, similar to what happens with Mozilla.
#
# I had some issues with the wording initially, but I think I've fixed them
# at least to my satisfaction. Loopholes, problems?
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software,
provided that you accompany it with this license and a description of
where the source code to the Software, plus any patches applied, may
be downloaded. This information must be put in a location where a user
of the distribution is likely to look for it.
# The last sentance here is not the most legal-looking thing I've ever seen,
# but I didn't have the heart to change it. I was amused by it. =>
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
third parties.
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software under the following restrictions:
a. You make your items available in machine-readable source code
form free of charge to all users of those items. You may charge a
reasonable fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.
b. You explicitly permit users of your items to freely modify the
source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices,
attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute
original or modified versions of the items.
c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
programs, reusable components and other software items that link with
the original or modified versions of the Software under any version of
the GNU General Public License. This Software may then be considered
to be under the GNU General Public License, version 2.
# There's no need to include the Artistic license in 6(c) because Artistic
# and the derivative of it which KDE intends to use fit 6(a) and 6(b).
# Also, 6(c) would not apply to a MODIFIED Artistic license anyway.
#
# Why not include the LGPL above? Well, all free software licenses fit 6(a)
# and 6(b) anyway, so the clause is pointless except for the purpose I've
# given it here. The license includes specific permission to sublicense Qt
# with the GNU GPL.
#
# PROS: direct integration with the GPL. _NOTHING_ else in the original
# QPL .90 draft besides 6(c) to allow this. Since this license is
# "almost GPL v2" this allows the GPL to be substituted for the QPL
# when used with GPL (but not LGPL--unnecessary!) software.
# CONS: This conflicts with section 3 above. It'd allow someone to write a
# GPL patch for Qt, apply it, and release the result under the GPL,
# and under that condition Troll Tech would maintain Copyright, but
# that version of the code would be under the GPL. This isn't as bad
# as it sounds, other than that a GPL Qt could have patches applied to
# it. The mods above to section 3 would make such an exercise
# pointless and while a possibility still exists, as in Mozilla's
# case it just won't happen.
# NOTE: The "insurance policy" against exploitation of this found in 3(b)
# may cause the QPL to be directly GPL compatible. If it's used, 6(c)
# might be able to be removed totally. Someone oughtta ask RMS or
# something. I'd really like to remove 6(c) if it's not needed.
Limitations of Liability
In no event shall the authors of the Software or their employers be
liable for any lost revenue or profits or other direct, indirect,
special, incidental or consequential damages, even if they have been
advised of the possibility of such damages.
No Warranty
The Software is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING
THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
# Left unanswered in my first suggested mod, I ask again: Most license have
# a much longer No Warranty section, is it necessary or does this suffice?
# If more should be added, what more exactly?
THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE
# What the hell is Q for anyway? <g> Ignore me--well no, don't.. My
# comments are here in these #'s and should help you figure out what I was
# thinking when I made a particular change. Remove everything between
# brackets, make the changes I suggest, and paragraph format the whole thing
# so the paragraphs look sane and you'll have what I suggest the license
# look like. Lets see if we can make this the best we can for everybody!
version 0.9
Copyright (C) 1998 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute this license document.
This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of
the Q Public License version 0.9. Such software is herein referred to
as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of
the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the
Software, and development of free software which uses the Software.
Granted Rights
- 1. All these rights are granted provided that you accept this license.
+ 1. You are granted the rights set forth in this license provided you
+ agree to any and all conditions in this license. Distribution of the
+ Software in machine-readable source or binary form signifies acceptance
+ of this license.
# The rationale here is that this might help if Troll Tech ever needs to
# defend the license against abuse.. Sooner or later, someone likely will
# try to abuse it as people try to abuse all things eventially. Best to be
# pro-active rather than re-active.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software
+ in unmodified form
provided that the entire
package is distributed, including this notice.
# Seems that's what Troll Tech is saying here, IMO---was the original
# wording better?
- 3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve
- the integrity of the unmodified version of the Software, modifications
- must be distributed in the form of patches, and the following
- restrictions apply to each patch:
+ 3. You may make modifications to the Software. In order to preserve the
+ integrity of the Software as a whole, modifications which alter the
+ functioning of the Software should be distributed in a manner which
+ clearly distinguishes them from unmodified versions of the Software. In
+ particular:
# I have NO IDEA if that does a good job or not of saying what I had in mind
# without adding confusion. We need to reword this most likely. The
# suggestion I make here is the most significant change I will make
# throughout the whole license. The idea put in terms that any human being
# can understand (though a lawyer might have problems trying to grok it) is
# that if you see what looks like pristine source, it probably should be
# pristine source. Changes that affect how the thing works probably should
# be patches or if they are distributed as part of the source, the source
# MUST NOT APPEAR to be unmodified Software. I don't think I quite got the
# point across above that the simplest and best way to do that would be a
# patch file, and I'm not sure I made it clear with that last part that the
# following conditions have to be met. We'll need to work on that.
#
# Please note this is a significant change and I'm not sure Troll Tech is
# going to like this one. It -MAY- be enough (I hope) to fix this sections
# incompatibility with the GPL. Seems the GPL is the only OpenSource
# license that requires the ability to make mods directly to the source. If
# this isn't good enough for the GPL then likely we can not be compatible
# with the GPL here. =3D< I will of course consider it a GPL problem, not a
# QPL problem, but RMS will disagree with me. If this isn't enough to
# satisfy the GPL, we need to rethink this entire section and probably
# should do it together.
- a. Application of the patch must not modify copyright notices in
+ a. Application of the modification must not modify copyright notices
+ in
the Software.
# Since what I suggest changing above would allow mods that aren't patches,
# such as working on something with CVS (patch already applied) or putting
# it in a package manager format other than dpkg, or whatever
- b. The patch must be explicitly licensed by the following clauses
- without additional restriction:
-
- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
- obtaining a copy of this patch, to deal in the patch without
- restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
- modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
- of the patch, subject to the following conditions: Any copyright
- notice and this permission notice must be included in all copies or
- substantial portions of the patch.
+ b. Modifications which cause any part of the unmodified Software to be
+ available under terms different than those set forth in this License
+ may not be distributed.
+
+ Please note that Troll Tech, AS will not incorporate patches which it
+ cannot use fully under the terms of this License into the Software. It
+ is requested therefore that your modifications be available under this
+ License to allow them to be integrated with the Software.
# Okay, here's another big change that hopefully will make more people happy
# than not. I'm kinda proud of this one. =3D> No way can you distribute a
# mod which is under for example a BSDish license which happens to include
# bits of of Qt under that BSDish license and expect those parts which are
# Qt to be BSDish licensed. No stealing the code out from under Troll Tech.
# Best of all, it does that but it doesn't look (to me) like it implies
# someone is likely to try. Should hopefully keep people from getting the
# idea.
#
# The second paragraph is not a requirement and is keeping with the attempt
# above to cause the license to be GPL friendly if possible. Since
# according to the OSD patches aren't patches until they're applied, the
# requirement that they be the above rather BSDish looking license wouldn't
# hold up very well. Experience with Netscape has shown us that if Netscape
# requires their license or the same terms (essentially Free Software with
# Netscape having the right to sell a commercial version including mods)
# people will write their mods for Netscape under Netscape's license or
# Netscape's _and_ their own, usually the GPL or LGPL in Netscape's case.
# People writing Qt mods because they want to modify Qt are going to release
# them under the QPL so they can be incorporated.
#
# Note the added section 7 below. This should be enough I think to allow
# Troll Tech to sell their commercial edition under a different license,
# even including other QPL'd patches. If I'm wrong, we need to fix that.
# Suggest away people!
- c. The patch must include an accurate description of the
+ c. The modification must include an accurate description of the
modification, the date of the modification and the author of the
modification.
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software,
provided that you accompany it with this license and a description of
where the source code to the Software, plus any patches applied, may
be downloaded. This information must be put in a location where a user
of the distribution is likely to look for it.
# Info in the same type of place (where someone is likely to look)
# indicating any changes which affect functionability should be required
# anyone think? It's an additional restriction they don't ask for, but
# would it help anyone? Would someone using the binary and not the source
# (or headers in the case of Debian and similar dists) CARE what mods were
# made provided the mods were included with the devel headers? Would a
# change like that further break GPL compatibility or does the GPL's
# requirement that derivative works indicate how they are derivative apply
# to binaries as well?
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or
third parties.
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software under the following restrictions:
a. You make your items available in machine-readable source code
form free of charge to all users of those items. You may charge a
reasonable fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.
# Note the GPL is more restrictive saying you may only charge your cost of
# giving out source--ie companies like CheapBytes selling source CDs for the
# same cost as the binary CDs are either making no profit at all or are in
# violation of the GPL on those things. Nobody has tried to sue the
# companies because it's not a good idea to do so, naturally.. Still, they
# could probably do so. Here, "reasonable fee" is used which would make
# companies like CheapBytes able to make some profit since clearly the cost
# of the source CD -IS- reasonable.
b. You explicitly permit users of your items to freely modify the
source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices,
attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute
original or modified versions of the items.
c. As an alternative to (a) or (b), you may offer these application
programs, reusable components and other software items that link
with the original or modified versions of the Software under
- the Artistic license or any GPL license.
+ a license compatible with the OpenSource Definition which can be found
+ at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.
# This seems to cover: GPL, LGPL, NPL/MPL-type, X-type, BSDish, Artistic,
# and applies to other derivatives. Note that with the exception of the
# Artistic, the actual GPL, and derivatives of any of these licesnes, pretty
# much every other OpenSource license is probably compatible with (a) and (b)
# anyway. This is meant to catch the GPL + restriction/freedom that still
# counts as OpenSource.
#
# Should a line be added here saying something to the effect of "it's your
# responsibility to make sure your license is compatible with ours" to at
# least attempt to avoid anything like what happened with KDE from happening
# again or do people here think nobody actually reads licenses like we do
# anyways and will never see it, so why bother restating the obvious? That
# thought considering some companies have used GPL code as if it were public
# domain because they didn't bother to read the GPL that was attached...
+ 7. Troll Tech, AS reserves the right to license the Software as
+ distributed by them under terms other than those in this License at their
+ discretion. Modifications made available under these terms may also be
+ incorporated into future versions of the Software as distributed by Troll
+ Tech, AS.
# This seems blatantly obvious, since Troll Tech owns the Copyright to Qt.
# However, anything modded and released under this license Troll Tech has the
# ability to relicense for commercial customers. If someone has a better way
# to say that in section 3, please tell me..
Limitations of Liability
In no event shall the authors of the Software or their employers be
liable for any lost revenue or profits or other direct, indirect,
special, incidental or consequential damages, even if they have been
advised of the possibility of such damages.
No Warranty
The Software is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING
THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
# Is that clear enough? I've seen most licences have longer "No Warranty"
# statements attached, and they're all worded about the same way. Is that
# necessary or is what's here good enough?
Attachment:
pgpDEL_eqqU07.pgp
Description: PGP signature