Hi,
IT Manger's journal has an article about 10 common misunderstandings about the GPL which you can read here http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
The experts NewsForge consulted to come up with this are: Richard Fontana, a lawyer with the Software Freedom Law Center and one of the main drafters of the third version of the license; David Turner, former compliance engineer at the Free Software Foundation who is assisting with the revisions of the license; and Harald Welte of the GPL-Violations projecthttp://gpl-violations.org/, which tracks possible cases of non-compliance and tries to assist in resolving them.
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he says, "no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable." </quote>
Regards Praveen
On 05-Sep-06, at 7:13 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he says, "no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable."
</quote>
main reason for this is that most people, including fanatical supporters have never actualy *read* the GPL although they think they have. There are even people who believe that the GPL cannot be revoked once granted.
btw, i have now read the GPL
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 05-Sep-06, at 7:13 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he says, "no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable."
</quote>
main reason for this is that most people, including fanatical supporters have never actualy *read* the GPL although they think they have. There are even people who believe that the GPL cannot be revoked once granted.
Huh ? I am guilty of not having read the GPL in full (too much legal language). And now you have me worried.
GPL can be revoked ? Under what circumstances can it be revoked ? So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ? Does the licensor have to inform each user separately or is the user expected to keep track of it. What happens to any further distribution on it ?
In current context, say MySQL decides to revoke the GPL. Can they do it ? What happens to all the software that are now designed to run on MySQL as it is under GPL ? (there was a real danger of this happening, as I know Oracle is making overtues and offering large sums of money to buy the company)
Regards Saswata
btw, i have now read the GPL
--regards
Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS lawgon@au-kbc.org http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 08:24 pm, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Huh ? I am guilty of not having read the GPL in full (too much legal language). And now you have me worried.
GPL can be revoked ? Under what circumstances can it be revoked ? So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue. US case law has well set precedents on this issue. Recent case jorg schillings cdrtools was relicenced only under the CDDL so Debian has thrown out cdrtools and forked a gpld version for further development.
Does the licensor have to inform each user separately or is the user expected to keep track of it.
Yes he has to. Which is one of the major pains to do any meaningful revocation.
What happens to any further distribution on it ?
Fork the prevoius gpld version and continue.
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
US case law has well set precedents on this issue. Recent case jorg schillings cdrtools was relicenced only under the CDDL so Debian has thrown out cdrtools and forked a gpld version for further development.
could you give the case law.
On Thursday 07 September 2006 10:42 am, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
Yes in principle. But has not happened in practice. You cant just revoke previous licence without sound reasons for the revocation against the previous licencees. Usually revocation works only if the original terms of the licence are violated.
US case law has well set precedents on this issue. Recent case jorg schillings cdrtools was relicenced only under the CDDL so Debian has thrown out cdrtools and forked a gpld version for further development.
could you give the case law.
i dont have the details :-(. But check out the groklaw archives. afair there was a discussion on this issue. Alternately run it through fsf legal.
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:11 AM, jtd wrote:
i dont have the details :-(. But check out the groklaw archives. afair there was a discussion on this issue. Alternately run it through fsf legal.
in fact, there is no case law on this subject as no one has revoked gpl and gone to court attempting to prevent further use of the code. But the fact that it can be done is what scares the sh*t out of a lot of people. So how to prevent this? Best way is to make sure lots of people contribute code to the project (as i mentioned in another post on this thread)
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:15 am, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:11 AM, jtd wrote:
i dont have the details :-(. But check out the groklaw archives. afair there was a discussion on this issue. Alternately run it through fsf legal.
in fact, there is no case law on this subject as no one has revoked gpl
No no u misunderstood. Not the gpl but revocation of copyright. There are precedents on revocation of copyright.
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:34 AM, jtd wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:11 AM, jtd wrote:
i dont have the details :-(. But check out the groklaw archives. afair there was a discussion on this issue. Alternately run it through fsf legal.
in fact, there is no case law on this subject as no one has revoked gpl
No no u misunderstood. Not the gpl but revocation of copyright. There are precedents on revocation of copyright.
who is talking about revocation of copyright? There is no such thing anyway.
Hey in the recent case where the debian guys kicked out Joerg Schilling ( the maintainer of cdrtools?? ). It was because he closed source his project, right? But they forked a new utility based on the last release under the GPL. Can someone explain us the exact consequences of his action on the entire community and the legal aspect of the whole thing?
Sometime on Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:05:10PM +0000, Dinesh Joshi said:
Hey in the recent case where the debian guys kicked out Joerg Schilling ( the maintainer of cdrtools?? ). It was because he closed source his project, right? But they forked a new utility based on the last release
As per what i read from debian-devel [0] list, Schilling released cdrtools under CDDL, and claimed that CDDL is not GPL incompatible license, even though GPL FAQ lists CDDL as incompatible.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00002.html
Anurag
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:35 pm, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
Hey in the recent case where the debian guys kicked out Joerg Schilling ( the maintainer of cdrtools?? ). It was because he closed source his project, right? But they forked a new utility based on the last release under the GPL. Can someone explain us the exact consequences of his action on the entire community and the legal aspect of the whole thing?
He hasn't revoked his licence on the old code. Hence the fork of his old code will continue under the gpl with other developers and maintainers. But if he does try to revoke the gpl on he previous code he will have tosend everyone a legal notice stating reasons for the revocation. Any one can challenge the revocation if it does not have a sound reason (even if it does). But if you do not challenge it means you accept his reason and will have to stop distribution and probaly useage too.
On 08-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
He hasn't revoked his licence on the old code. Hence the fork of his old code will continue under the gpl with other developers and maintainers. But if he does try to revoke the gpl on he previous code he will have tosend everyone a legal notice stating reasons for the revocation.
he need not give reasons - notice is enough. But he has to file suit to enforce it - i doubt he will. No one who has met eben moglen would willingly take him on unless huge amount of $ is involved
On 07/09/06 10:42 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
Erm, no./ Previous versions of the code stay under whatever license they were released under, and that won't change. The license only changes for a newer codebase.
Devdas Bhagat
On 08-Sep-06, at 12:22 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 07/09/06 10:42 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
Erm, no./ Previous versions of the code stay under whatever license they were released under, and that won't change. The license only changes for a newer codebase.
did you read the whole thread?
On Friday 08 September 2006 12:22 pm, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 07/09/06 10:42 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
Erm, no./ Previous versions of the code stay under whatever license they were released under, and that won't change. The license only changes for a newer codebase.
Actually yes. That is the whole point of revoking the licence. But unless the revocation is for violation of the original terms of licenece the author has nearly nil chance of revoking. He can always change the licenec of new release minus anybody else's gpld contribs.
On Friday 08 September 2006 12:22, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 07/09/06 10:42 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 07-Sep-06, at 10:18 AM, jtd wrote:
No. The gpl (or any copyright) can be revoked. But the earlier release and use is protected and cannot be revovked. so u can fork the earlier version and continue.
revoker can prevent you from forking also afaik.
Erm, no./ Previous versions of the code stay under whatever license they were released under, and that won't change. The license only changes for a newer codebase.
Wasn't that the case with WINE? In the reverse though, they shifted to GPL from some other license (probably BSD), that allowed commercial apps to be made out from the source without the modifications having to be sent back to the original codebase.
That's how Cedega and Crossover exist I suppose. They forked the WINE code under the old license.
I could be wrong.
On 06-Sep-06, at 8:24 PM, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Huh ? I am guilty of not having read the GPL in full (too much legal language). And now you have me worried.
it is only 10 sections and not much legal language - do read it
GPL can be revoked ? Under what circumstances can it be revoked ?
any time the copyright holder feels like
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
Does the licensor have to inform each user separately or is the user expected to keep track of it.
yes
What happens to any further distribution on it ?
same thing applies
In current context, say MySQL decides to revoke the GPL. Can they do it ? What happens to all the software that are now designed to run on MySQL as it is under GPL ? (there was a real danger of this happening, as I know Oracle is making overtues and offering large sums of money to buy the company)
see - if i write software, license it under gpl and release it, you build a business around it. I revoke the license and say 'pay me or stop using the software'. You have to comply. If you dont i sue you and will win. So can linus do it? Theoretically yes, but he owns only a small fraction of the copyright and will have to get the consent of thousands of others before he can revoke. So in practice he cannot. But Mysql owns every bit of the copyright - so it can revoke. That is because Mysql does not accept patches unless the copyright of the patch is handed over to it. The idea of the GPL is to *subvert* copyright so that noone in practice has copyright over the work. But that only works if a sufficient number of people contribute code to the work.
On Thursday 07 September 2006 10:56 am, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 06-Sep-06, at 8:24 PM, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Huh ? I am guilty of not having read the GPL in full (too much legal language). And now you have me worried.
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
You can challenge the revocation in court and are almost guranteed to win the challenge.
Does the licensor have to inform each user separately or is the user expected to keep track of it.
yes
What happens to any further distribution on it ?
same thing applies
In current context, say MySQL decides to revoke the GPL. Can they do it ? What happens to all the software that are now designed to run on MySQL as it is under GPL ? (there was a real danger of this happening, as I know Oracle is making overtues and offering large sums of money to buy the company)
see - if i write software, license it under gpl and release it, you build a business around it. I revoke the license and say 'pay me or stop using the software'. You have to comply. If you dont i sue you and will win.
You are guranteed to lose. Revocation as opposed to relicencing a new release has to be based on sound principle, like the licencee violating the terms of the licence( and in fact that would be the only ground). At best you could prevent further distribution as opposed to stopping usage. Also the recipient, who has acted in good faith, and invested substantial resources based on your original licenece will be entitled to compensation even if u do manage to revoke the licence.
So can linus do it? Theoretically yes, but he owns only a small fraction of the copyright and will have to get the consent of thousands of others before he can revoke. So in practice he cannot. But Mysql owns every bit of the copyright - so it can revoke. That is because Mysql does not accept patches unless the copyright of the patch is handed over to it. The idea of the GPL is to *subvert* copyright so that noone in practice has copyright over the work. But that only works if a sufficient number of people contribute code to the work.
That is why i use postgres. One has to be a very doubting thomas when some acts of the author seem fishy. In the case of MySQL there havebeen several such statements by it's directors which would cause me to be seriously worried. Same goes for some of the commercial distros and closed drivers.
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
Sorry to barge in. I reread the GPL V2 again, but could not understand how a GPL V2 license can be revoked? Once the software is released it is out of the hands of the releaser. Can some one please point out the clause under which a license can be revoked (unless the license clause is violated).
Of course It is not clear to me what happens with a new release. Is it a derivative/modification of the old GPL release software or a new program? If it is a modification then in my understanding you can not release it under any other license.
Thanks and regards.
N. Sadhu
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:47 am, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
Sorry to barge in. I reread the GPL V2 again, but could not understand how a GPL V2 license can be revoked? Once the software is released it is out of the hands of the releaser. Can some one please point out the clause under which a license can be revoked (unless the license clause is violated).
Copyright law (on whose foundations the gpl derives it's legal standing) allows for revocation of any rights granted by the orginal copyright holder. Hence the holder can revoke the rights granted by the gpl (or any other right so granted under the provisions of coyright).
Of course It is not clear to me what happens with a new release.
Any release under a new licence by the orginal holder will be subject to the new licence terms. However the old code will continue to be gpld. And additions and modifications to the old code it will also have to be gpld. And the orignal author cannot use such gpld code in his new version released under a different licence. In practice too taking free software (BSD licence - it's not possible to close gpld code) and closing it, completely destroys usability and any advantage of closing eg IE using NCSA Mosiac, Win95, 98, using FBSD tcp stack.
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:47 am, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
Sorry to barge in. I reread the GPL V2 again, but could not understand how a GPL V2 license can be revoked? Once the software is released it is out of the hands of the releaser. Can some one please point out the clause under which a license can be revoked (unless the license clause is violated).
Copyright law (on whose foundations the gpl derives it's legal standing) allows for revocation of any rights granted by the orginal copyright holder. Hence the holder can revoke the rights granted by the gpl (or any other right so granted under the provisions of coyright).
But can it be revoked with retrospect effect? Unless that is the fact, then this discussion is academic. Any software released will in all perpetuity be still under GPL and free.
Thanks and regards.
N. Sadhu
On 07-Sep-06, at 12:39 PM, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
Copyright law (on whose foundations the gpl derives it's legal standing) allows for revocation of any rights granted by the orginal copyright holder. Hence the holder can revoke the rights granted by the gpl (or any other right so granted under the provisions of coyright).
But can it be revoked with retrospect effect? Unless that is the fact, then this discussion is academic. Any software released will in all perpetuity be still under GPL and free.
nothing can be revoked with retrospective effect. eg: I give a license in march 2008. You use the software from april 2008. I revoke the license in march 2009. I can prevent you from using the software without paying the license fee from march 2009 onwards. Retrospective effect means getting you to pay for the software from april 2008 onwards. This is not possible.
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:47 AM, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
So that will mean that after the GPL is revoked, you can not use the software ?
yes - you cannot
Sorry to barge in.
why apologise? You are welcome
I reread the GPL V2 again, but could not understand how a GPL V2 license can be revoked? Once the software is released it is out of the hands of the releaser.
the ownership of the copyright remains in the hands of the releaser, the licensee does not get copyright or any ownership - he merely gets the right to use, modify etc
Can some one please point out the clause under which a license can be revoked (unless the license clause is violated).
there is no clause saying it can be revoked - by definition the copyright holder can revoke the license unless
1. there is a clause saying it is irrevocable 2. the license has been paid for
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Can some one please point out the clause under which a license can be revoked (unless the license clause is violated).
there is no clause saying it can be revoked - by definition the copyright holder can revoke the license unless
- there is a clause saying it is irrevocable
- the license has been paid for
1. By principle of natural justice should it not be reverse? There should be a clause saying the license can be revoked under these conditions.
2. Is it not a contradiction. The license is based on the "principle of freedom", so there is also a clause saying you can charge for the software, but that is mentioned because it is a exception to the principle.
When you say "paid for" is the consideration only financial? Does not your agreeing to the principle of freedom be taken as your payment?
Thanks and regards.
sadhu
On 07-Sep-06, at 1:40 PM, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
there is no clause saying it can be revoked - by definition the copyright holder can revoke the license unless
- there is a clause saying it is irrevocable
- the license has been paid for
- By principle of natural justice should it not be reverse? There
should be a clause saying the license can be revoked under these conditions.
I think GPL should have a clause where the licensor undertakes not to revoke the license unless the license conditions are violated.
When you say "paid for" is the consideration only financial? Does not your agreeing to the principle of freedom be taken as your payment?
the consideration need not be only financial - but the courts may not accept what you have stated as adequate consideration
btw, dont think i am opposed to the GPL - all i am saying is that when advocating the GPL we should be clear on what it means and not BS people who have genuine doubts.
On 07-Sep-06, at 11:32 AM, jtd wrote:
yes - you cannot
You can challenge the revocation in court and are almost guranteed to win the challenge.
i suggest you read the Indian Contract Act. Court will not uphold anything where no consideration (payment) has passed.
see - if i write software, license it under gpl and release it, you build a business around it. I revoke the license and say 'pay me or stop using the software'. You have to comply. If you dont i sue you and will win.
You are guranteed to lose. Revocation as opposed to relicencing a new release has to be based on sound principle, like the licencee violating the terms of the licence( and in fact that would be the only ground). At best you could prevent further distribution as opposed to stopping usage. Also the recipient, who has acted in good faith, and invested substantial resources based on your original licenece will be entitled to compensation even if u do manage to revoke the licence.
you have not paid for the license, you have no remedy in court. I suggest you read the relevant sections of The Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Easements Act. For example, I own some land and allow (give a license to) the local cricket association to use it for cricket without payment. They build a stadium. I revoke the license without cause. They cant get compensation for their stadium. If they had paid for the license, i could still revoke without cause, but then they have a case for compensation. Good faith etc etc only applies if you have paid for the license. And the GPL nowhere promises that the license given is not revocable.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
i suggest you read the Indian Contract Act. Court will not uphold anything where no consideration (payment) has passed.
you have not paid for the license, you have no remedy in court. I suggest you read the relevant sections of The Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Easements Act. For example, I own some land and allow (give a license to) the local cricket association to use it for cricket without payment. They build a stadium. I revoke the license without cause. They cant get compensation for their stadium. If they had paid for the license, i could still revoke without cause, but then they have a case for compensation. Good faith etc etc only applies if you have paid for the license. And the GPL nowhere promises that the license given is not revocable.
There is a doctrin in contract act that says that a promise made can be enforced even without consideration if the person to whom the promise is made has acted in good faith and made a financial commitment. If you give a license to the association and they build a stadium, you will have to compensate them if you withdraw the license before the period promised in the license.
There were examples of this doctrine given in our text books when we studied law.
Regards Saswata
--regards
Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS lawgon@au-kbc.org http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On 10-Sep-06, at 8:01 PM, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
There is a doctrin in contract act that says that a promise made can be enforced even without consideration if the person to whom the promise is made has acted in good faith and made a financial commitment. If you give a license to the association and they build a stadium, you will have to compensate them if you withdraw the license before the period promised in the license.
for a lease, yes - license no
On 9/5/06, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
IT Manger's journal has an article about 10 common misunderstandings about the GPL which you can read here http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
The experts NewsForge consulted to come up with this are: Richard Fontana, a lawyer with the Software Freedom Law Center and one of the main drafters of the third version of the license; David Turner, former compliance engineer at the Free Software Foundation who is assisting with the revisions of the license; and Harald Welte of the GPL-Violations projecthttp://gpl-violations.org/, which tracks possible cases of non-compliance and tries to assist in resolving them.
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he says, "no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable."
</quote>
Regards Praveen -- "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Hi all Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ? That is, is the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected to the author?
Regards, Mohan S N
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:29 pm, Mohan Nayaka wrote:
Hi all Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ?
Are u trolling?. But i'll let that pass once. NEVER use the term viral. A virus infects you without your consent. when u use gpld software i presume you read the licence which is clear about what u do and dont do with that piece of code. So it is NOT VIRAL.
That is, is the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected to the author?
No u dont pay the author anything. You are free to charge whatever u please without having to pay any one anything. And tell your colleuges to go back to their worm hole if they dont have the smarts to make a thriving business out of gpld software - speaks volumes about the shallowness of the code and business model. You can compare it to matchsticks (or any other commodity) very useful, simple design, can be made by anyone, can be given away free too but yet matchsticks is a billion dollar industry.
On 9/7/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:29 pm, Mohan Nayaka wrote:
Hi all Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ?
Are u trolling?.
No intention at all of trolling.
But i'll let that pass once.
Thanks
NEVER use the term viral. A virus infects you without your consent. when u use gpld software i presume you read the licence which is clear about what u do and dont do with that piece of code. So it is NOT VIRAL.
By "viral" i only meant that aspect of GPL which requires any derived work to be distributed with the source code. yes, "viral" has this negative association that I didn't think of.
That is, is the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected to the author?
No u dont pay the author anything. You are free to charge whatever u please without having to pay any one anything.
Thanks for the clarification.
And tell your colleuges to go back to their worm hole if they dont have the smarts to make a thriving business out of gpld software - speaks volumes about the shallowness of the code and business model. You can compare it to matchsticks (or any other commodity) very useful, simple design, can be made by anyone, can be given away free too but yet matchsticks is a billion dollar industry.
-- Rgds JTD
Regards, Mohan S N
-
Anurag -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mohan Nayaka -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Nachiketa Sadhu -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
പ്രവീണ്|Praveen