Hi all!
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
The full text of the draft is available at http://gplv3.fsf.org/
> GNU Free Documentation License
>
> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
>
> THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU FREE
> DOCUMENTATION LICENSE.
[...]
> 0. WHAT THIS LICENSE DOES
>
> The purpose of this License is to make a work of authorship free.
:::: Bad: license proliferation
There was no need for the GNU Free Documentation License in the first
place: when the first version of the GFDL was published, the GNU GPL v2
was already suitable for making a work of authorship free. Writing a
separate, incompatible, license only helped to balkanize the Free
Software community: license proliferation is bad and should be avoided
as much as possible. This move was a mistake made by the FSF and should
be fixed as soon as possible.
Now that the GFDL exists, the only ways to correct the mistake that I
can imagine are the following ones:
* the FSF avoids publishing a new version of the GFDL, stops
recommending/promoting it, and relicenses the GNU manuals under the GNU
GPL
* the FSF publishes version 2 of the GFDL with an explicit
conversion-to-GPL clause that permits relicensing of GFDLed works under
the GNU GPL, and stops recommending the adoption of the GFDL
> This means giving all users the four essential freedoms:
>
> 0. The freedom to read, view, or use the work. 1. The freedom to
> change the work, with access to formats which make that convenient to
> do. 2. The freedom to make and redistribute copies of the work. 3.
> The freedom to distribute modified versions.
>
> Secondarily, this License assures the author and publisher the credit
> for their work, while sparing them any appearance of being
> responsible for modifications made by others.
>
> This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative
> works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It
> complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft
> license designed for free software.
>
> This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that
> are textual; it can be used for any work of authorship meant for
> human appreciation, rather than machine execution.
:::: Bad: misleading distinction between works of authorship
This distinction between "human appreciation" and "machine execution" is
really meaningless and should be avoided. There are many cases where a
work is meant for both "human appreciation" and "machine execution":
think about literate programming (in the TeX sense), documentation
extracted from specially crafted comments (for instance with Doxygen),
documents written in PostScript (which is actually a full-featured
programming language), SID tunes (which, AFAIK, are music files that
consist of code executed by the SID chip, or by a suitable emulator).
A good license should be recommendable for any work of authorship, be it
program code, documentation, audio, video, literature, journalism, and
so forth, or even more than one of the above at the same time!
A bad license should instead be avoided for everything.
[...]
> 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
>
> In this License, each licensee is addressed as "you," while "the
> Work" refers to any work, in any medium, that contains a notice
> placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the
> terms of this License.
:::: Good: neutral term
Using the neutral term "Work" is a good thing to do: it avoids
misleading people into thinking that a license can be applied to one
category of works only. I wish the FSF did the same in the GNU GPL v3
(as I said when I commented on the GPLv3 drafts).
> It may physically consist of multiple volumes.
> A "modified" work includes versions that have been translated,
> transformed, or adapted, or to which material has been added. A work
> "based on" another work means any modified version for which
> permission is necessary under applicable copyright law.
:::: Good: clear definitions
Improvement: as I said for the second draft of GPLv3, it's good that now
the definition of "based on" exploits applicable copyright law. This
helps to ensure that the license does not place restrictions on
activities that do not require permission under applicable copyright
law.
>
> To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires
> permission under applicable copyright law, except making
> modifications that you do not share. Propagation includes copying,
> distribution (with or without modification), making available or
> communicating to the public,publicly displaying or performing the
> work and in some countries other activities as well. To "convey" a
> work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make
> or receive copies, excluding sublicensing.
:::: Good: clear definitions
The definitions of "propagate" and "convey" are very similar to the ones
found in the second draft of GPLv3. They seem fairly clear and their
linking to copyright law helps to ensure that the license does not place
restrictions on activities that do not require permission under
applicable copyright law.
>
> An "Ancillary Section" is a named section preceding or following the
> main body of the Work that deals exclusively with the relationship of
> the publishers or authors of the Work to the Work's overall subject
> (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
> within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Work is in part a textbook
> of mathematics, an Ancillary Section may not explain any
> mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
> connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
> commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
> them.
:::: Bad: sections can change nature in modified versions of the work
This definition is troublesome, because what is an "Ancillary Section"
in a work could easily become non-ancillary in a modified version of the
work (whose main topic could well change and become the one treated in
that section!). This interacts badly with "Invariant Sections", as
defined in the next paragraph: in a nutshell, I cannot derive a work D
that treats topic T from a GFDLed work W that has an Invariant Section
about T. This problem existed in GFDL v1.2, as well, and is well
described in this message by Rick Moen[1].
[1]
http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:6986:200404:jicghldafngijibhnajo
===> works that include "Invariant Sections" make some derivatives
completely impossible and thus fail DFSG#3
>
> The "Invariant Sections" are certain Ancillary Sections whose titles
> are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
> that says that the Work is released under this License. If a section
> does not fit the above definition of Ancillary then it is not allowed
> to be designated as Invariant. The Work may contain zero Invariant
> Sections. If the Work does not identify any Invariant Sections then
> there are none.
:::: Bad: "Invariant Sections" are unmodifiable and unremovable parts
I strongly disapprove of the very idea of allowing unmodifiable and
unremovable parts ("Invariant Sections") in a license that claims to
have the purpose "to make a work of authorship free". Unmodifiable
parts have no place in a free work. Neither have unremovable parts.
The reason is stated in the very GFDL draft I'm commenting: in Section
0. the "four essential freedoms" are summarized and the fourth is "The
freedom to distribute modified versions". Modifiability is a key
concept for a work to be Free.
There of course can be some restrictions on modification that don't make
the work non-free: for instance the requirement to keep proper copyright
and permission notices, or to maintain a reasonable log of changes
applied to the work, ...
But "Invariant Sections" go far beyond, being parts of the work that
cannot ever be modified, nor removed. Both these constraints
(unmodifiability and unremovability) are non-free restrictions.
===> works that include "Invariant Sections" fail DFSG#3
>
> The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed,
> as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says
> that the Work is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may
> be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.
:::: Bad: "Cover Texts" are unmodifiable and unremovable parts
I object to "Cover Texts" for very similar reasons as outlined for
"Invariant Sections". Basically, they are unmodifiable and unremovable
parts: they consequently have no place in a free work.
===> works that include "Cover Texts" fail DFSG#3
>
> A "Transparent" copy of the Work means a machine-readable copy,
> represented in a format whose specification is available to the
> general public, that is suitable for revision straightforwardly by
> generic editors appropriate to the medium (text, sound, video, etc.),
> and that is suitable (perhaps through programmed format conversion)
> for input to a wide variety of programs for processing that medium.
:::: Improvable: still suboptimal definition of "Transparent" copy
The definition of "Transparent" copy is improved with respect to GFDL
1.2, but it's still suboptimal, IMO. In some cases, we could end up in
a situation where no "Transparent" version of the work exist anymore
(for instance, after modifying the work with a proprietary word
processor that saves in a closed-spec format): at that point it would
become impossible to comply with the requirement of section 3. (COPYING
IN QUANTITY).
I think that what is really needed to be able to exercise the freedom to
modify the work is the "preferred form for making modifications". In
other words: we have a good definition of source code in the GPL text;
why creating a different definition here?
I suggest dropping the "Transparent"/"Opaque" distinction and adopting
the "Source"/"Object" one, as in the GPL text.
> Material stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that
> thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification by others
> is not Transparent. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called
> "Opaque".
>
> Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works
> include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input
> format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD or schema,
> OpenDocument format, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript
> or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image
> formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Examples of transparent video
> formats include MPEG2 and Ogg Theora. Opaque formats include
> proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary
> word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD, schema and/or
> processing tools are not generally available, and the
> machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word
> processors for output purposes only.
:::: Inappropriate: examples may be misleading and soon become outdated
I'm not sure that listing a series of concrete examples of "Transparent"
and "Opaque" formats is a good idea.
It may easily be misleading. Imagine someone that actually modifies
images in SVG format, but distributes them in PNG format: I don't think
he/she would be acting fair, but nonetheless, he/she could claim being
in compliance with the license, as its very text states that PNG is a
"transparent image format".
Moreover, it may soon become outdated: some of the mentioned formats
could be considered obsolete in the near future and new formats will be
defined. In other words, this paragraph could rapidly become less and
less useful...
[...]
> 2. VERBATIM COPYING
>
> You may propagate the Work unmodified in any medium, either
> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
> to the Work are reproduced in all copies,
:::: Unpractical: giving license text along with the Work should be
allowed
Being forced to include the license text *in* the Work is an
inconvenience and could in some cases be very unpractical, if not worse.
The GPL has a looser requirement, as it allows giving the license text
*along* with the Work, rather than forcing the inclusion *into* the
Work. I think that the same should be allowed for the GFDL.
[...]
> You may not apply technical measures to obstruct or control the use
> or further copying of any copies you make or distribute, by those to
> whom they may be distributed.
:::: Bad: fighting against DRM is good, but not through a non-free
clause!
The anti-DRM clause is a bit improved, but needs some further work to be
a free restriction.
I think that the current language is unclear: "by those to whom they may
be distributed" fails to really qualify the people who could perform the
use or further copying that cannot be obstructed or controlled. Assume
that I downloaded a GFDLed work and I decide to distribute it to some
people that pay me a fee in exchange for copies (this is allowed by the
very next sentence of the license): I perform this distribution through
an encrypted channel (HTTP over TLS, say). The encrypted channel could
well be seen as a technical measure to obstruct the use of copies I
distribute, by third non-paying parties. Are those third non-paying
parties people to whom the copies *may* be distributed? I would say
yes, because I *might* distribute the copies to them as well, *if* I
wanted to. Hence, it seems I would be violating the license in this
scenario. I hope that's not intended.
Moreover "make or distribute" implies that even copies that I only make,
but not distribute, are in the scope of this clause: this should *not*
be the case! Assume I downloaded a GFDLed work and I decide to make
some backup copies on encrypted filesystems, or even on unencrypted
directories that are not world-readable. The encrypted filesystem or
the Unix file permissions could well be seen as technical measures to
obstruct the use or further copying of those backup copies I made, by
people to whom the copies *may* be distributed (that is to say, by
anyone else, since I *might* distribute those copies to anyone I like
to). Hence, once more it seems I would be violating the license.
Again, I hope that's not intended.
Finally, DRM should be disallowed only when it actually harms by denying
the full exercise of the permissions granted by the license. Hence,
distributing a GFDLed work through DRMed media or channels should be
allowed in some cases: for instance, when an *un*encumbered copy is made
available as well (in parallel), provided that this is enough to
re-enable the full exercise of the legal rights granted by the license.
BTW, why have the denationalized terms ("convey", "propagate") vanished
in this clause?
I suggest rephrasing the anti-DRM clause in a different way, by
modelling it after the GPLv3draft2 formulation.
Proposed text: "Regardless of any other provision of this License, no
permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that receive
the Work the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
===> fails DFSG#1 (restricts selling and/or giving away) and DFSG#5
(discriminates against persons who need privacy)
> However, you may charge a fee in
> exchange for copies.
[...]
> 3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
>
> If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
> printed covers) of the Work, numbering more than 100, and the Work's
> license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in
> covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts:
> Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the
> back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as
> the publisher of these copies.
:::: Bad: is anonymous publication disallowed?
This clause seems to forbid anonymous publication of a work. If the
restriction on covers requires an actual name (and a pseudonym or the
term "anonymous" are not enough), then the license fails to give the
important freedom to exercise the granted rights while remaining
anonymous.
===> fails the Dissident Test and thus discrimates against persons that
need anonymity (DFSG#5)
[...]
> If you convey Opaque copies of the Work numbering more than 100, you
> must also convey a corresponding machine-readable Transparent
> version. The Transparent version need not have identical formatting
> as long as its contents are the same and are clearly visible, and
> non-textual contents have equal or superior resolution and quality.
> When you convey the Opaque copies by offering access to copy from a
> designated place, you must offer equivalent access to copy the
> Transparent version from the same place.
:::: Good: here are the Opaque and Transparent copies, pick what you
like
Great improvement: allowing this is really important!
With this language, I don't have to force users to download the
Transparent copy, if they don't want to get it, and this is really good.
[...]
> 4. MODIFICATIONS
>
> You may convey a Modified Version of the Work under the conditions of
> sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified
> Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version
> filling the role of the Work, thus licensing distribution and
> modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of
> it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
[...]
> B. List as authors (on the Title Page, if any), one or more persons
> or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the
> Modified Version.
[...]
> D. Prominently state the name of the publisher of the Modified
> Version.
[...]
> G. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice
> giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the
> terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
:::: Misleading: which Addendum?
Since the new FSF policy seems to be that instructions on how to use
licenses are not anymore attached to license texts, but hosted
elsewhere, I think that mentioning an "Addendum" confuses the reader.
I think that ", in the form shown in the Addendum below" should be
dropped entirely.
> H. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant
> Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Work's license notice.
> I. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
:::: Unpractical: accompanying the Work with the license text should be
enough
As I said elsewhere, being forced to include the license text *in* the
Work is an inconvenience and could in some cases be very unpractical, if
not worse.
For some kinds of work, it could even be impossible (think about an
audio file, for instance).
Proposed text: "Accompany the Modified Version with an unaltered copy of
this License."
> J. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and
> add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and
> publisher of the Modified Version. If there is no section Entitled
> "History" in the Work, create one stating the title, year, authors,
> and publisher of the Work, then add an item describing the Modified
> Version as stated in the previous sentence.
:::: Bad: are anonymous modifications disallowed?
Items B., D. and J. seem to forbid anonymous modifications to a work.
If the restrictions on the Title Page and the History require an actual
name (and a pseudonym or the term "anonymous" are not enough), then the
license fails to give the important freedom to exercise the granted
rights while remaining anonymous.
===> fails the Dissident Test and thus discrimates against persons that
need anonymity (DFSG#5)
[...]
> L. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
> Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all
> the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements
> and/or dedications given therein. Acknowledgments and Dedications can
> be deleted when a Modified Version deletes all material to which the
> Acknowledgments and Dedications could reasonably have applied.
:::: Bad: unmodifiable content has no place in a free work
Item L. restricts the freedom to modify to the work, and hence make it
non-free. Such restrictions have no place in a license that claims to
have the purpose "to make a work of authorship free".
I recommend dropping any special restriction for sections Entitled
"Acknowledgements" or "Dedications".
===> works that include a section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or
"Dedications" fail DFSG#3.
> M. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Work, unaltered in
> their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are
> not considered part of the section titles.
:::: Bad: "Invariant Sections" cannot be modified, nor removed
As I already stated elsewhere, I strongly disapprove of the very idea of
allowing unmodifiable and unremovable parts ("Invariant Sections") in a
license that claims to have the purpose "to make a work of authorship
free". Unmodifiable parts have no place in a free work. Neither have
unremovable parts.
Besides the philosophical issues, "Invariant Sections" also pose serious
practical problems.
Whenever one wants to take a significant part of a GFDLed work and
incorporate it into a another work, every and each "Invariant Section"
must be carried on too; even when the part is short compared with the
"Invariant Sections". Hence, I cannot incorporate text from a GFDLed
document encumbered with "Invariant Sections" into a free program, while
obtaining a free modified program. This is not a license
incompatibility: it holds *whichever* license the free program is
released under!
Moreover, "Invariant Sections" cannot be updated, nor substituted with
rewritten versions. This is troublesome, because the licensee is forced
to retain parts that may become inaccurate, obsolete, inappropriate,
overly long (even when space is at a premium, such as in a reference
card adaptation of the work), untranlated in the appropriate language.
Please note that this holds for other unmodifiable and unremovable
parts, too.
I see that section 6a. (EXCERPTS) below seems to address the reference
card issue: unfortunately special-casing short excerpts (with a
hard-coded upper limit in length) is not the appropriate strategy to
cure the problem, IMO (especially since there's no upper limit for the
length or number of "Invariant Sections", and hence there may well be
cases where the total length of the material to be retained is still
problematic even if the excerpt is longer than 20000 characters or 12
printed pages).
===> works that include "Invariant Sections" fail DFSG#3
> N. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not
> be included in the Modified Version.
> O. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements"
> or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
:::: Bad: restrictions on titles
Item O. restricts the modifiability of the work, since it forbids
changing section titles so that they become Entitled in some manners.
Forbidding possibly appropriate titles is a non-free restriction.
For instance, what if a section talks about endorsements? Why cannot it
be Entitled "Endorsements"?
I suggest dropping restrictions on section titles entirely.
===> fails DFSG#3
[...]
> If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no
> material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some
> or all of these sections as invariant.
:::: Kills copyleft: anyone can add "Invariant Sections" to a GFDLed
work
Suppose a work is published under the terms of the GFDL, without any
"Invariant Section". Anyone can take the work, modify it by adding some
"Invariant Section" and redistribute the modified version. Allowing the
inclusion of unmodifiable and unremovable content has no place in a
license that claims to be "a kind of copyleft".
===> this possibility makes the modified work fail DFSG#3, when
exercised
> To do this, add their titles
> to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license
> notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.
>
> You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains
> nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version
:::: Bad: restrictions on section content
This clause restricts the modifiability of the work, since it forbids
adding a section Entitled "Endorsements", if it contains anything other
than endorsements of the Modified Version. What if the added section
actually talks about endorsements, rather than containing endorsements?
Forbidding possibly appropriate titles or content is a non-free
restriction.
I suggest dropping restrictions on the content of a section Entitled
"Endorsements". Proposed text: "You may add endorsements of your
Modified Version by various parties"
===> fails DFSG#3
> by various
> parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has
> been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a
> standard.
>
> You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and
> a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the
> list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version.
:::: Kills copyleft: anyone can add "Cover Texts" to a GFDLed work
As for "Invariant Sections", anyone can take a GFDLed work that was
published with no "Cover Texts", modify it by adding a "Front-Cover
Text" and/or a "Back-Cover Text" and redistribute the modified version.
Allowing the inclusion of unmodifiable and unremovable content has no
place in a license that claims to be "a kind of copyleft".
===> this possibility makes the modified work fail DFSG#3, when
exercised
[...]
> 6a. EXCERPTS
>
> You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to
> 20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in
> electronic form, or up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute
> of audio or video, as an Excerpt. An Excerpt follows the applicable
> rules of this license, except that the following required
> materials--the copy of this license, title page materials, historical
> copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and any required
> sections--may be replaced by one or more publicly accessible URLs
> referring to the same materials.
>
> 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
>
> A compilation of the Work or its derivatives with other separate and
> independent works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution
> medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and the copyright
> resulting from the compilation are not used to limit the legal rights
> of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
> Including the Work in an aggregate does not cause this License to
> apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
> derivative works of the Work.
:::: Style: what happened to denationalization?
This section seems to be drafted with U.S. centric terminology in mind.
For instance, what happened to the term "based on", as defined in
section 1.?
I suggest rephrasing this section in a more denationalized form.
[...]
> 8. TRANSLATION
>
> Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may
> distribute translations of the Work under the terms of section 4.
> Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special
> permission from their copyright holders, but you may include
> translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the
> original versions of these Invariant Sections.
:::: Bad: encourages "Invariant Section" bloat
This is yet another practical problem with "Invariant Sections": rules
for translation encourage the addition of more and more "Invariant
Sections", which will only help to make the other issues with them worse
and worse.
[...]
> 8a. SFDL RELICENSING
>
:::: Bad: more license proliferation
Another different license? License proliferation is bad and should be
avoid as much as possible.
> If the Work has no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections then you may
> relicense the Work under the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.
>
> [8b. WIKI RELICENSING
:::: Bad: more and more license proliferation
Yet another different license?!? Once more: license proliferation is
bad and should be avoid as much as possible. This is getting really
annoying! Is the FSF considering how much time of the members of the
community is being consumed in revising license drafts that keep being
published by the FSF?!? The GPLv3draft1was followed by a reasonable
consultation period, but then the GPLv3draft2, accompanied by the
LGPLv3draft1, was shortly followed by GFDLv2draft1, and by
GSFDLv1draft1; now this GNU Wiki License seems to be in preparation...
This tsunami of new license texts seems to be really unjustifiable!
What we really should aim to is having more free software, not more
licenses!
I strongly recommend the FSF to never draft the GNU Wiki License. Even
Creative Commons (who seem to not care much about the problem of license
proliferation...) considered the idea of special-casing wikies, but
later dropped this possibility.
>
> If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
> Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
> Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
> under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the
> Work was either initially developed in that collaboration system or
> had been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense
> the Work under the GNU Wiki License.]
:::: Retroactive: is this legally possible?
This sounds awkward and arbitrary. If a work was published under
version 1.2 *only* of the GFDL, then it's not relicensable under any
other set of terms, unless the copyright holders explicitly agree to the
relicensing. The FSF cannot retroactively change what is stated in
section 10. of the GFDL v1.2. A different story obviously holds for
works published under version 1.2 *or later* of the GFDL, but this
clause does not seem to be based on the usual license-upgrade mechanism.
The date limit is also awkward and arbitrary: why is 1 June 2006
special?
>
> 9. TERMINATION
[...]
> 10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
[...]
--
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgptX3n_afg5U.pgp
Description: PGP signature